Melting Wood?

[Ophiolite]

Would the definition I speak of radically change any current instance of accepted melting ? ,

Yes. It would radically and almost completely alter it. Your inability to recognise this is one of the reasons you should not be trusted to make up definitions by yourself.

Conclusion

 

It is a slight extension , a step , probably nothing new that may/may not have been used in the past

It bears little or no relation to anything that has been used in the past.

 

And you still haven't answerd my question: do you really see no problem in using a definition that is different from that used by all other informed people?

[mississippichem]

Would the definition I speak of radically change any current instance of accepted melting ? , no , it would include it . It is a slight extension , a step , probably nothing new that may/may not have been used in the past , which would encourage those who think they can melt something not to worry about fusion .

 

Phase changes [melting] have a very strict thermodynamic meaning. It has to do with the change in energy at the phase transitions.

 

Science definitions are not like dictionary definitions. Most have some mathematical definition hiding behind the words.

Edited August 4, 2011 by mississippichem

[Essay]

Essay ,

 

I've seen that people on the internet are using fusion to mean melting and here is why I think this is so . When it is talked of that an object melts a value for heat that is applied to the situation is the heat of fusion ( the reverse , be careful with the signs ) . From always looking for values that refer to melting they are always looking for the term fusion . This has led to people thinking fusion is a word for melting . In a similiar way the heat of evaporation is being applied to condensation . Let's hope people don't try to call evaporation and condensation the same thing .

 

Fusion when I use the term means to me solidification , freezing , crystallization .

 

I used to also think exactly the same thing, but then I looked the word "fusion" up in the dictionary (even a non-scientific dictionary) to discover that I was wrong.

===

 

As contrasted with fission (which is how I first learned about "fusion"), fusion (as parts "freezing" together) seemed like the opposite of fission ("melting" into parts). In other words fission and fusion seemed like two side of the same phase change (so as you mentioned, one would need to "be careful with the signs"), but that was wrong.

 

A better analogy probably would be to contrast fusion (as parts melting together) with fission (as "evaporation" into parts); thus comparing fusion and fission with two different phase changes, respectively.

But as an analogy it is still not very comparable, and the dictionary is an easier way to discern meaning.

===

 

So in this case you are definitely wrong. Fusion means melting, not freeezing.

Interestingly, since you mentioned "crystalization" specifically... fusion refers to the loss of order in a crystal (melting) but not the establishment of crystalline order being "frozen" into place, as you seem to have visualized.

~

[Hal.]

Yes. It would radically and almost completely alter it. Your inability to recognise this is one of the reasons you should not be trusted to make up definitions by yourself.

 

 

Alas , that is the way I must be .

 

 

It bears little or no relation to anything that has been used in the past.

 

 

The past is a lot of time . I doubt you can search it so quickly and thoroughly .

 

And you still haven't answerd my question: do you really see no problem in using a definition that is different from that used by all other informed people?

 

 

I'd have no problem using it in parallel with convention or independently . The only thing I am doing contrary to accepted practice is that the process of phase change from , for example , in the case of water , solid ice to liquid , is regarded as melting without the need to prove that the reverse phase change can take place . Applied to wood , all it would mean is that a person who wants to melt wood does not have to prove that they can do the reverse phase change . Why should proof of two phase changes be required to show one phase change has taken place ?

 

One last thing , Ophiolite likes to send sarcastic personal messages . If you have a problem don't send me any messages , send them to an administrator . I don't have to reply to your personal messages in private when they can so easily be answered in public . My penalties for any previous posts I have made regarding you have been dealt with a multiple of what should have been . I am making it now known that any personal message sent to me from now on will be made public in the thread to which it applies .

 

Essay ,

 

Here is how I see Fusion , the type of Fusion occuring when steel goes from being liquid to being solid . When a weld electrode is melted it flows towards the piece of steel upon which it is to be bonded . It is in liquid form and is termed melted . Shortly after being deposited it cools while still being liquid but then changes to being solid . That short time period of transition from liquid to solid happens because of what is called Fusion . Melting is used to bring these objects together but the actual last step in changing from liquid to solid is Fusion . Fusion stops the flow .

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Perhaps I should go to a linguistics forum and ask if the word "melt" can be applied to what happens to wood in a hydraulic press.

[CaptainPanic]

I'd have no problem using it in parallel with convention or independently . The only thing I am doing contrary to accepted practice is that the process of phase change from , for example , in the case of water , solid ice to liquid , is regarded as melting without the need to prove that the reverse phase change can take place . Applied to wood , all it would mean is that a person who wants to melt wood does not have to prove that they can do the reverse phase change . Why should proof of two phase changes be required to show one phase change has taken place ?

I can only repeat things from here on. Everything has been said.

So, you do things different than everybody else.

I cannot agree to disagree on a definition, but I can agree that we use two definitions in parallel. There's melting, and there's "Hal.'s melting" from now on.

Congratulations. We can now "Hal.'s melt" wood, sugar, and many plastics.

[Hal.]

CaptainPanic ,

 

if your coining of the phrase ' Hal.s melt ' is to be used , don't confuse the reader into thinking that materials which haven't been ' Hal.s melted ' or which haven't been shown to be possible to ' Hal.'s melt ' have actually been ' Hal.'s melted ' , ie wood . You can try to Hal.'s melt whatever you like , take an ice cube and place it on your table , maybe you could confirm what a strong body of evidence is likely to suggest , that it can Hal.'s melt . It's very similiar to ordinary conventional melting , there is just no assumption that if one were to take the liquid of the ' Hal.'s melted ' ice cube and put this liquid in the fridge to cool , one would finish with an ice cube .

 

Lastly , CaptainPanic , can you get IUPAC onside ?

[Essay]

Essay ,

 

Here is how I see Fusion , the type of Fusion occuring when steel goes from being liquid to being solid . When a weld electrode is melted it flows towards the piece of steel upon which it is to be bonded . It is in liquid form and is termed melted . Shortly after being deposited it cools while still being liquid but then changes to being solid . That short time period of transition from liquid to solid happens because of what is called Fusion . Melting is used to bring these objects together but the actual last step in changing from liquid to solid is Fusion . Fusion stops the flow .

 

I feel the same way; but if I want to understand and be understood, I will try to use the IUPAC conventions:

 

http://www.nzqa.govt...ry-specs-11.pdf

 

Symbols, nomenclature, spelling and formatting will follow current IUPAC conventions. These are shown in the reference sheet 'Quantities, Units, Symbols and Nomenclature used in Chemistry'.

 

Note (i) The superscript ° denotes a defined standard state.

(ii) The alternative superscript θ (plimsol) is acceptable.

(iii) A space is always left between any value and its unit, as well as between units for composite

units.

– ΔfusH, enthalpy of fusion (melting)

– ΔvapH, enthalpy of vaporisation

– ΔsubH, enthalpy of sublimation

 

 

For instance, this would be hard to understand if fused meant solidified, since they are studying flow.

 

http://www.iupac.org...f/5302x0509.pdf

This methodology is an indirect method and reflects the degree •or extent of fusion of the resin materials. Direct morphological

evidence can be obtained by microscopic evaluation of a processed resin. The PVC fusion process is a multistep process. The first step we have observed in both Brabender and extruder studies, is the breakdown of the resin particles, followed by a compaction of the broken particles (31). Sintering and interdiffusion is the third step of the process, both sintering of the micro and submicroparticles. Interparticle strength is developed and is the main factor determining the strength of fused materials.... The measured variable was the pressure to achieve this flow rate. Using a temperature programed Brabender (2k), we obtained samples sheared at different temperatures.

 

...or this:

Crystallization-morphology-polymer processing correlations for ...

The crystallization behavior of three IUPAC low density polyethylene samples has

been characterized by thermal .... types, namely: (a) fusion at 453K followed by

isothermal .... are found to be scattered throughout an ill-defined mat- ...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pen.760210102/pdf - SimilarNew Zealand Scholarship

 

Or just google fusion definition:

Fusion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

the act or process of liquefying or rendering plastic by heat. 2. : a union by

or as if by melting: as a : a merging of diverse, distinct, or separate ...

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fusion - Cached - Similarfusion - definition of fusion by

 

the Free Online Dictionary ...

The act or procedure of liquefying or melting by the application of heat. 2. The

liquid or melted state induced by heat. 3. a. The merging of different ...

www.thefreedictionary.com/fusion - Cached - Similar

===

 

So I'd say it is more like... "fusion" is the flow; solidification or crystalization stops the flow.

 

~

[Hal.]

Essay , the best piece of advice to you is that if you are in education you should do as you are told to do by your professors / lecturers .

................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

The following is my opinion ,

 

Your reference above gives the following , ΔfusH, enthalpy of fusion (melting)

 

When I look at those words this is what I see . The enthalpy for fusion ( liquid to solid ) taking place is the same as the enthalpy for melting ( solid to liquid ) to take place . I do not see that as meaning that fusion is melting . They are opposites . The heat involved is the same though , use proper signs when calculating .

 

I'm willing to accept that people use the term fusion to mean melting . Are they right or wrong ? , Does it matter ? , Will the two terms have to be clarified to mean the same thing because people either rightly or wrongly interchange them ?

 

............. Later ,

 

Essay , just because there is flow doesn't mean fusion can't be part of the flow . Think of a river that drains slowly and as it gets colder some parts freeze , fusion of water to make ice is happening , flow is still taking place but the parts where fusion has happened are flowing as larger pieces , finally the surface is all frozen and no flow is seen there , it is one piece .

 

............. Later ,

 

Latent heat of Fusion from Wolfram . http://scienceworld....atofFusion.html

 

The heat absorbed as a substance changes phase from liquid to solid , a process called fusion or solidification .

 

Fusion from Wolfram . http://scienceworld....ics/Fusion.html

 

In physical chemistry, the word "fusion" is a synonym for solidification .

 

Melting from Wolfram . http://scienceworld....cs/Melting.html

 

The phase transition of a solid to a liquid . The opposite is freezing .

Edited August 5, 2011 by Hal.

[Ophiolite]

One last thing , Ophiolite likes to send sarcastic personal messages . If you have a problem don't send me any messages , send them to an administrator . I don't have to reply to your personal messages in private when they can so easily be answered in public . My penalties for any previous posts I have made regarding you have been dealt with a multiple of what should have been . I am making it now known that any personal message sent to me from now on will be made public in the thread to which it applies .

Dear hal,

you accused me of being a racist. I asked you, in public, to explain yourself on the relevant thread. You failed to do so. In order not to embarass you I repeated the request by pm. You ignored it. Since you prefer to be admonished by admins rather than resolve issues quietly I shall honour that wish in future. I expect you'll get reported a lot.

[Hal.]

Dear hal,

you accused me of being a racist. I asked you, in public, to explain yourself on the relevant thread. You failed to do so. In order not to embarass you I repeated the request by pm. You ignored it. Since you prefer to be admonished by admins rather than resolve issues quietly I shall honour that wish in future. I expect you'll get reported a lot.

 

 

De heer Ophiolite ,

 

I am not allowed to call you a racist , my hypothesis was one of civility , there is a difference which you could learn sometime , so you really should be apologising to me for the ascertion I called you a racist , the penalty was based on a hypothetical , it was unilaterally imposed without any discussion , though I had noticed afterwards as an ordinary non-member user that you did want further replies , the rules had been applied either rightly or wrongly . I wouldn't ignore you Ophiolite , that wouldn't be nice .

 

It doesn't matter to me if people report me , I can always communicate a defence to those who matter contrary of the assumption of guilt before innocence .

 

Sincerely yours , goedemiddag ! ,

 

Hal.

[Externet]

If "melting" can be interpreted like making it deformable, like rubber, or perhaps to take the shape of a container; under some force or not;

Try submerging wood in ammonia for a ? length of time and then under some force it can be deformed. Perhaps it may work better pulling some vacuum on the ammonia vessel to pull all air out of the wood and have the ammonia take its place for thorough 'wetting'.

[dragonstar57]

we differ in opinion because you're melting has been defined as reversible . I , and it is only I I speak of , see no problem in using a definition of melting that is reversible or irreversible , thus it can then be independent of any proof that the object can be refrozen . So , if a person is trying to prove that a piece of wood can be melted , with my definition , they don't have to prove that the piece of wood can be fused in a reverse process .

Words like melting by definition imply that the beginning substance and the product substance are the same in every way but phase. water is still H2O no matter if its water vapor, liquid water or ice.

you seem to define melt as "to turn a solid to a liquid" but the more scientific definition has the core idea of phase changes not changing the substance in any way but phase. While if you look up a definition of melt it never says "can be reversed" but its a critical idea to the concept of states of matter.

[Hal.]

Dragonstar57 ,

 

Hal.'s melt is consistent with the view that a phase change has taken place , it is consistent with the view that the same material exists after the phase change as that which existed before the phase change .

[dragonstar57]

Dragonstar57 ,

 

Hal.'s melt is consistent with the view that a phase change has taken place , it is consistent with the view that the same material exists after the phase change as that which existed before the phase change .

Than why don't you explain why it is correct to say anything turning from a solid to a liquid has "melted"?. "hal's melt'" and a real phase change only share the idea that a solid has become liquid. "hal's melt" does not require it to have been a simple rearrangement of molecular structure due to adding heat as real melting does. The core idea of phase changes is that there are 3 states of matter (ignoring plasma) and that substances can shift from one to the other freely based on heat. You want to retain the "solid becoming liquid" definition of melting but science has had to use a more specific definition because of the different mechanisms by which a solid can go through a process and produce a liquid.

[Hal.]

dragonstar57 ,

 

to form an opinion of what it is I ascert you must understand 100 % of the concept as 99 % is not good enough . Hal.'s melting is different than conventional melting because it is independent of any reliance on reversibility . This means that if you heat an ice cube to a liquid and refreeze it and use the fact that you have reversed the phase change to form any part of the proof that you have firstly melted the ice cube , your proof is reliant on reversibility . I merely use a definition of melting which will not rely on reversibility . In other words , the reverse phase change will not form any part of the proof that melting had originally taken place .

 

edit : spelling

Edited September 6, 2011 by Hal.

[dragonstar57]

dragonstar57 ,

 

to form an opinion of what it is I ascert you must understand 100 % of the concept as 99 % is not good enough . Hal.'s melting is different than conventional melting because it is independent of any reliance on reversibility . This means that if you heat an ice cube to a liquid and refreeze it and use the fact that you have reversed the phase change to form any part of the proof that you have firstly melted the ice cube , your proof is reliant on reversibility . I merely use a definition of melting which will not rely on reversibility . In other words , the reverse phase change will not form any part of the proof that melting had originally taken place .

 

edit : spelling

solid becoming liquid is not melting. to prove that that what occurred was a change of the structure rather than a change in the blocks (molecules) that it is built from your need to be able to change it back. solid----->liquid could be any form of reaction. just as liquid---->gas is not necessarily evaporation. while you need no validation to say that something has has become liquid you do need to be able to turn it back to say it was only a phase change rather than a reaction of some sort. ps all of your reply's have been identical plz if you reply explain how your definition and how is not just a less specific definition of the real thing

[Hal.]

dragonstar57 ,

 

If you think my replies are always the same it may be because I am consistently describing the same thing .

 

Don't interpret my view as meaning that when a material changes from a solid to a liquid it has melted . I do not say this , as I am wise enough to understand that solid materials can become a part of a liquid and it can't be called melting . Only recently I put some plant matter in a container and filled it with water as much as possible and a few weeks later it appears that I have a container which contains a liquid and bubbles of gas . The plant matter did not melt .

[insane_alien]

Hal why don't you just use 'liquify' instead of melt?

 

the process of melting is nice and defined while liquify is suitibly vague to encompass non-reversible processes.

 

also for the non-reversible liquifying processes, they probably already have names so there is no need of adding another into the mix.

 

but as to normal thermodynamic phase changes, melting is and always will be, reversible.

[doG]

but as to normal thermodynamic phase changes, melting is and always will be, reversible.

I've got a recipe for solder to be used for soldering steel. It says to melt together a mix of brass and zinc strips. Since this results in an irreversible composite alloy is the recipe wrong in using the term 'melt together'?

[John Cuthber]

The zinc would melt and the brass (which already contains zinc) would dissolve in the molten zinc.

[insane_alien]

yeah, thats a process of melting and mixing rather than just melting.

[Hal.]

 

Hal why don't you just use 'liquify' instead of melt?

 

the process of melting is nice and defined while liquify is suitibly vague to encompass non-reversible processes.

 

also for the non-reversible liquifying processes, they probably already have names so there is no need of adding another into the mix.

 

but as to normal thermodynamic phase changes, melting is and always will be, reversible.

 

 

Take for instance an ice cube and heat it until it flows as water . It has been melted and it can also be described as having been Hal.'s melted . Hal.'s melting is not a term for non-reversible processes . It is melting independent of any part of it's proof being evidence of the reverse process of fusion .

 

Also , if you think I am saying melting isn't reversible , you are mistaken .

 

Lastly , the term , " Hal.'s melt " , was first used by CaptainPanic in his wisdom to describe the point of view of melting which I have , I have simply tried to explain it as it has been questioned .

[dragonstar57]

Take for instance an ice cube and heat it until it flows as water . It has been melted and it can also be described as having been Hal.'s melted . Hal.'s melting is not a term for non-reversible processes . It is melting independent of any part of it's proof being evidence of the reverse process of fusion .

 

Also , if you think I am saying melting isn't reversible , you are mistaken .

 

Lastly , the term , " Hal.'s melt " , was first used by CaptainPanic in his wisdom to describe the point of view of melting which I have , I have simply tried to explain it as it has been questioned .

you are saying that melting does not require possibility of reversibility. and repeating your concept of melting is not helping. why don't you try to describe why you believe that reversibility is not inherent in melt despite the evidence shown by me and other posters and why you wish to use a definition of melt that is not widely accepted?

[Hal.]

dragonstar57 ,

 

I don't know what I can say to continue the conversation or even if further explanation is needed . There is another thread over in the Chemistry section called ' to melt or not to melt ' , have a read if it interests you . I'm not trying to be arrogant or rude , just as you would like , no repetition .