Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29

Author Topic: Physics and mathematics discussion  (Read 44135 times)

Nivim

  • Bay Watcher
  • Has the asylum forgotten? Are they still the same?
    • View Profile
Re: Physics and mathematics discussion
« Reply #405 on: February 03, 2010, 11:48:58 pm »

 If something is labeled "volatile" that means it evaporates at relatively low temperatures. So I guess in this case that does refer to the impurities that enter the air, but the image doesn't give you any idea about what it means.

 I am fairly sure you're talking nonesense about the number of reactions; both because of the existence of four-step reactions I learned in introductory chemistry, and because I just did a search for "methane combustion mechanism" (you reminded me of the name, so google, 1st&2nd page, .edu) that came up with 5-11 steps (a sheet for 11 and a paper talking about a 5-9 step simplified reaction). Well, my question is answered. I guess orders do matter when it comes to those reactions; I had this vague idea that there was some other force that made 5-particle collisions probable.

 In your last paragraph it almost sounds as though people wont launch pedantry attacks at you if you don't ask; anyone who reads it who believes they know something about it will respond. Like me.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 11:51:35 pm by Nivm »
Logged
Imagine a cool peice of sky-blue and milk-white marble about 3cm by 2cm and by 0.5cm, containing a tiny 2mm malacolite crystal. Now imagine the miles of metamorphic rock it's embedded in that no pick or chisel will ever touch. Then, imagine that those miles will melt back into their mantle long before any telescope even refracts an image of their planet. The watchers will be so excited to have that image too.

Manae

  • Bay Watcher
  • Smile
    • View Profile
Re: Physics and mathematics discussion
« Reply #406 on: February 04, 2010, 12:16:42 am »

You can find the full mechanism here. Yes, far simpler systems can be constructed and still be fairly accurate, and that's how most work is going to be done--especially with more complex mechanisms for larger hydrocarbons.

I'm digging deeper into the GRI site, and it looks like they're up to 325 reactions now. Head to here and type "all" in the bottom left box, click the button, and you can have a look at them all.
Logged

Nivim

  • Bay Watcher
  • Has the asylum forgotten? Are they still the same?
    • View Profile
Re: Physics and mathematics discussion
« Reply #407 on: February 04, 2010, 12:47:16 am »

 (Links! :] ) Then why did you say it one of the simplest systems?
Logged
Imagine a cool peice of sky-blue and milk-white marble about 3cm by 2cm and by 0.5cm, containing a tiny 2mm malacolite crystal. Now imagine the miles of metamorphic rock it's embedded in that no pick or chisel will ever touch. Then, imagine that those miles will melt back into their mantle long before any telescope even refracts an image of their planet. The watchers will be so excited to have that image too.

Manae

  • Bay Watcher
  • Smile
    • View Profile
Re: Physics and mathematics discussion
« Reply #408 on: February 04, 2010, 02:27:42 am »

Well, if you can get a system of [currently] 325 reactions for CH4, imagine how big it gets with larger hydrocarbons. Each additional atom added to the starting fuel molecule adds dozens upon dozens of possible radical reactions.
Logged

decius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Physics and mathematics discussion
« Reply #409 on: February 04, 2010, 09:14:57 am »


Also, I can't guarantee this definition, but I believe for matter to be considered plasma it has to be completely stripped of electrons. In essence, it's just a nucleus cloud, and hot due to the energy required to get to that state.

Completely stripped of electrons? Such that N-6 is an ionized gas, but N-7 is a plasma? That sounds valid, but how different are N-6 and N-7 in terms of physical properties?

And isn't the mechanism of thermoluminescence the same as the mechanism for chemoluminescence, at the atomic level? (electron goes from excited state to less excitied state, gamma emitted with energy equal to that lost by the electron) I thought that the characteristic distribution of blackbody radiation was due to the doppler effect, and the fact that in a large number of hot molecules, many would be moving away from you and many towards. The relative motion of the emitting electron should be added to the energy of the emitted photon.

I seem to recall that there are many examples of low-energy plasmas, which have a color other than red or white. I might be misremembering, or thinking of ionized gases.
Logged
TBH, I think that all dwarf fortress problem solving falls either on the "Rube Goldberg" method, or the "pharaonic" one.
{Unicorns} produce more bones if the werewolf rips them apart before they die.

Manae

  • Bay Watcher
  • Smile
    • View Profile
Re: Physics and mathematics discussion
« Reply #410 on: February 04, 2010, 12:34:32 pm »

I honestly don't know that much about plasmas, so I can't really go deeper into that. I'm not even positive my definition is true, it's just what I've been led to believe. Color-wise, though, I generally think of plasmas as a cyan. (Popping over to wikipedia. the cited definition is "...an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles..." There is the claim also that the magnetic field response and high electrical conductivity are the characteristics of a plasma and is the determinate between the gas and plasma phases.)

At the atomic state, yes, the two processes should be the same. The difference is that chemiluminescence results from excitation due to the reaction, while thermo is the release of an excited state trapped in a crystal lattice previously after absorption of high-energy radiation. So, the heat doesn't cause the glow, it just allows it to get out.
Logged

Virex

  • Bay Watcher
  • Subjects interest attracted. Annalyses pending...
    • View Profile
Re: Physics and mathematics discussion
« Reply #411 on: February 04, 2010, 07:10:57 pm »

Well, if you can get a system of [currently] 325 reactions for CH4, imagine how big it gets with larger hydrocarbons. Each additional atom added to the starting fuel molecule adds dozens upon dozens of possible radical reactions.

I see some M's in that table, are they for cataclysts? Because that significantly increases the amount of reactions. Also, it's air we're speaking here so you've got a bunch of nitrogen-related and radical forming reactions that only occure at significant levels at such high temperatures.
If you'd look at a reaction occuring at a much lower temperature (say, non-radical catalytic polymerisations or living polymerisations) you'd go down significantly in the amount of reactions that actualy contribute anything.
Logged

decius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Physics and mathematics discussion
« Reply #412 on: February 04, 2010, 08:10:40 pm »

Whoa, don't confuse the primary pathways with the pathways. I'd guess that M refers to a generic metal catalyst, based on very limited knowledge. As far as which ones are most significant... consider each reaction to also be the reverse reaction. CH3 + C2H6 -> C2H5 + CH4 implies that C2H5 + CH4 -> CH3 + C2H6. One of the two will be significant whenever those species are present.
At the atomic state, yes, the two processes should be the same. The difference is that chemiluminescence results from excitation due to the reaction, while thermo is the release of an excited state trapped in a crystal lattice previously after absorption of high-energy radiation. So, the heat doesn't cause the glow, it just allows it to get out.
Wait, I thought heat, at a basic level, WAS the excitation of electrons. I know that the "electron stored in a crystal latice escapes in the presence of heat" happens; thatt is one of the bases of the dosimeters used un nuclear power plants. That light, however, has a distictive profile that is different from that of objects that are simply hot.
Logged
TBH, I think that all dwarf fortress problem solving falls either on the "Rube Goldberg" method, or the "pharaonic" one.
{Unicorns} produce more bones if the werewolf rips them apart before they die.

Manae

  • Bay Watcher
  • Smile
    • View Profile
Re: Physics and mathematics discussion
« Reply #413 on: February 04, 2010, 08:45:34 pm »

M refers to any third body. Literally any molecule could fill in, though the catalyst analogy is proper.

At the most basic level, heat is the transfer of energy between matter; doesn't really have anything to do with electrons. I guess it could cause excitation, but in general would just be an increase in the internal energy of the matter.
Logged

Virex

  • Bay Watcher
  • Subjects interest attracted. Annalyses pending...
    • View Profile
Re: Physics and mathematics discussion
« Reply #414 on: February 05, 2010, 09:47:47 am »

At the atomic state, yes, the two processes should be the same. The difference is that chemiluminescence results from excitation due to the reaction, while thermo is the release of an excited state trapped in a crystal lattice previously after absorption of high-energy radiation. So, the heat doesn't cause the glow, it just allows it to get out.
Wait, I thought heat, at a basic level, WAS the excitation of electrons. I know that the "electron stored in a crystal latice escapes in the presence of heat" happens; that is one of the bases of the dosimeters used un nuclear power plants. That light, however, has a distictive profile that is different from that of objects that are simply hot.
Heat is generaly ascociated with collisions between molecules. The energy levels that occur in these collissions are generaly not enough to excite the electrons in a molecule (unless you're talking about blackbody radiation). Most energy, at normal temperatures, is transfered by activating rotational and vibrational modi, or by changing the kinetic energy. It is probably possible to excite electrons via highly excited vibrational modi, so that way some crystals could potentially ionize thermally.

Since electronic energy levels are pretty much exclusive to the near-infrared and higher frequencies, anything that doesn't cause any apreciatble amount of light or UV is probably not an electronic transition, but vibrational or rotational
Logged

decius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Physics and mathematics discussion
« Reply #415 on: February 09, 2010, 11:51:15 am »

Nitpicking ahoy! (spoilered for off-topicness)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Further nitpicking.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You didn't do any math to show what fraction of that energy actually becomes mass though. We only get significant contributions to mass in conditions like moving 90% of the speed of light (in which case we're getting mass instead of velocity changes.)

Wait, does temperature itself even ever contribute mass?

Well... no. Heat transfer, acceleration, and phase changes all respect conservation of mass. Only nuclear changes convert mass to/from energy.

As far as the thermal expansion of stone goes, I think stone will expand from 5-15% from room temperature to its melting point. It will weigh slightly less for the same mass, due both to the added displacement of air and to the increased distance to the center of the planet (since it will be taller).
Logged
TBH, I think that all dwarf fortress problem solving falls either on the "Rube Goldberg" method, or the "pharaonic" one.
{Unicorns} produce more bones if the werewolf rips them apart before they die.

Sean Mirrsen

  • Bay Watcher
  • Bearer of the Psionic Flame
    • View Profile
Re: Physics and mathematics discussion
« Reply #416 on: February 09, 2010, 12:59:20 pm »

Most of the mass of a molten stone humanoid would likely be concentrated at its legs though,  as flowing stone would be dragged down, so I'd say that last part is negated. Also, it effectively lowers the density of air around it by heating it up (or wait, does it work that way? I think it does, hot air balloons and such).
Logged
Multiworld Madness Archive:
Game One, Discontinued at World 3.
Game Two, Discontinued at World 1.

"Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe's problems are the world's problems, but the world's problems are not Europe's problems."
- Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs, India

EvilTwin

  • Bay Watcher
  • likes skeletons for their afros
    • View Profile
Re: Physics and mathematics discussion
« Reply #417 on: February 09, 2010, 05:08:09 pm »

that would make the golem sink a bit more, which would even be a higher factor than the thermal energy...

thermal energy, btw, is movement of molecules, the hotter, the faster... they are moving in a randomized fashion, the so-called Brownian motion. Since kinetic energy changes the mass (only slighty, i know) of an object, the golem's mass is in fact affected by it.

EDIT: Ok, I'm sorry, wasn't Brownian Motion, but something similar...
« Last Edit: February 09, 2010, 05:13:01 pm by EvilTwin »
Logged

G-Flex

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Physics and mathematics discussion
« Reply #418 on: February 09, 2010, 05:11:41 pm »

Most of the mass of a molten stone humanoid would likely be concentrated at its legs though,  as flowing stone would be dragged down

You're assuming the stone would actually flow realistically down, which isn't very valid. After all, we know the creature actually manages to maintain humanoid shape, so how much mass winds up in the legs is fairly arbitrary.

Actually, you'd be able to check in the new raws anyway.
Logged
There are 2 types of people in the world: Those who understand hexadecimal, and those who don't.
Visit the #Bay12Games IRC channel on NewNet
== Human Renovation: My Deus Ex mod/fan patch (v1.30, updated 5/31/2012) ==

EvilTwin

  • Bay Watcher
  • likes skeletons for their afros
    • View Profile
Re: Physics and mathematics discussion
« Reply #419 on: February 09, 2010, 05:42:23 pm »

[no offense]

G-Flex, this important stuff!  ;D

No, seriously... I don't really care about the relationship between temperature and weight of a golem, and I don't think the other guys here do. This talk is for having fun, not for being cool. It's still good it has been moved away from the FotF-thread, since that thread shouldn't derail like this or like it did with armor-and-weapon-related stuff the other day, because that one is serious.

So please, don't be a grinch on us. Let us have our fun talking about non-sense and tell yourself that you have grown in mind. ;)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29