Melting Wood?

[Ophiolite]

Ophiolite ,

 

you don't know what you are talking about .

On the contrary, I know exactly what I am talking about and that is your intransigent stupidity. There is a definition of melting that is accepted by scientists globally. It is not questioned, doubted, or disputed. Why? Because it is an effective, useful, productive definition. You wish to abuse the term to describe a process that is not melting. Why? As far as i can see it is in a lame attempt to cover up for the fact that you orignally thought that wood could melt. No one would have thought less of you had you admitted as much. We are all ignorant of most things. But you needed to defend the indefensible and in the process reveal yourself as a right prat. Frigging amazing!

[Hal.]

Ophiolite , my threshold of annoyance far exceeds yours . You are guessing about what I am saying , I am not surprised that you show patterns of ego annoyance , If I thought wood could melt I would say so , you like to say things that are false .

 

 

[CaptainPanic]

CaptainPanic ,

 

If you understand the viewpoint I have then there is no confusion .

There is confusion, because you persist to use the word melting for a phenomenon which isn't melting.

If you ever melt something and wish to describe this as melting with no reference to it's proof which is dependent on reversibility then you will have something in common with me , Hal .

To put it very bluntly, you have 2 options: you can either accept the common definition of melting, or you can keep quiet. You can't use a word, and change its meaning for your personal use... at least, not in science. And this is a science forum.

[Hal.]

CaptainPanic ,

 

Hal.'s melting is used as a term to describe that which differs from conventional melting , it is uncommon melting for reasons already explained and no doubt understood . I have many options , I can explain what I mean to clear up any misunderstanding , which I think is not required if a person is to read the full thread .

[dragonstar57]

CaptainPanic ,

 

Hal.'s melting is used as a term to describe that which differs from conventional melting , it is uncommon melting for reasons already explained and no doubt understood . I have many options , I can explain what I mean to clear up any misunderstanding , which I think is not required if a person is to read the full thread .

please give an example of hals melting which does not fit the definition of melting as has been set fourth by the consensus of posters .

I understand that you are saying that to hals melt it may or may not be reversible

i just want an example of a situation where it is not reversible. i am not claiming that non-reversibility is inherit in "hals melt" if I say "dragons are green and are scaly" amd you say "they are green but do not have to be scaly" it would make perfect sense for me to ask for an example of a non scaly dragon. (and if you don't post an example with explanation of whats occurring @ the molecular level i doubt anyone will believe that you are anything other than a troll)

[Hal.]

 

dragonstar57's philosophy of technology: if its important put four times more than it could possibly ever need...then double it

 

This is what I have done dragonstar57 , I explained my point of view quite early , it needs no more . If people would like to think I am a troll , it won't bother me .

 

 

 

 

 

[Ophiolite]

Ophiolite , my threshold of annoyance far exceeds yours . You are guessing about what I am saying , I am not surprised that you show patterns of ego annoyance , If I thought wood could melt I would say so , you like to say things that are false .

Curiously, as a human, I get annoyed by lies.

 

You said in an earlier post :

With reference to the original question of whether a piece of wood can be melted or not , it does not have to be shown that the process is reversible so that fusion then becomes a precondition for melting .

It is true that you have studiously avoided making any explicit statment, but the implication is that you consider that the changes occuring to wood when heated in an oxygen free atmosphere may be considered as melting. If this was not your intention then you should have been clearer in your statements. My reading comprehension skills have been assessed as significantly above the average, so I tend to suspect the communication failure - if there is one here - is largely your responsibility.

 

You are now engaged in attempting to defend the indefensible : attempting to apply a non-standard technical term in a scientific setting. The only individuals I know who would indulge in such a practice are charlatans or fools. I welcome your identification of the third category that I am missing, since you are doubtless neither a charlatan or a fool.

[Hal.]

Ophiolite ,

 

I have given examples in this thread and in another thread of instances where I believe Hal.'s melting has taken place . They are clear explanations of a kind that the usual abstract question dodger does not give . If I say that when an ice cube is placed on a table and it is heated to give a pool of water , those understanding the point of view of Hal.'s melting would see no reason not to agree it has been Hal.'s melted . I know what melting by the rules of those who want to have the most common standard is , I also know what Hal.'s melting means , if it were my opinion that a piece of wood could either be melted or Hal.'s melted I would say so . I don't have to describe the circumstances of everything that has ever melted or why something may or may not be able to melt .

 

There is no communication failure here . I have communicated my view , if you interpret it correctly we will both understand the same view . You say you have been assessed as having above average reading skills , read this then ,

 

If Hal thought a piece of mahogany could be melted Hal would say so . If Hal thought a piece of mahogany could be evaporated Hal would say so . If Hal thought there was ever a chance a chippy could condense a table and four chairs for him to sit at for dinner Hal would say so .

[CaptainPanic]

An ice cube is a very poor example, since that actually melts (it's reversible)... And your other example (a table and four chairs) is just ridiculous, so we're still nowhere near a decent example to discuss.

 

Since you seem to suggest that melting isn't always reversible, can you please provide us with a decent example of that?

[Hal.]

CaptainPanic ,

 

This is not a matter of refinements of interpretation . You are stating that it's your understanding that I am suggesting that melting isn't always reversible . Where did I suggest this ? Don't point me to a post that then leads to a refinement of interpretation . You are being told here in this post that I did not say that melting isn't always reversible and this has been my consistent view .

[CaptainPanic]

You are being told here in this post that I did not say that melting isn't always reversible and this has been my consistent view .

Ok - so you say (with a double negative) that melting is always reversible.

Thanks... I think that a few people in this thread, myself included, thought you disagreed with that. To remind us all, it was for example this post that caused most confusion:

 

To suppose melting something can only happen if you can make it fuse afterwards is wrong .

That suggested that you can melt something without being able to freeze it again to obtain the same material as you started with, meaning it's not reversible.

 

So, it's very sad that we've needed 86 posts to find out that we somehow agree with each other, and that we somehow misunderstood you all the time.

[Hal.]

CaptainPanic ,

 

Do you think you speak for everybody in the thread and the scientific community . Free yourself , Vrijheid zoals een kraai door de lucht .

 

An ice cube on a table takes heat from it's surroundings and a puddle is formed . Do you agree it has been Hal.'s melted ?

 

 

[Ophiolite]

CaptainPanic ,

 

Do you think you speak for everybody in the thread and the scientific community .

He sure as fuck speaks for me. Your writing style is obtuse and ambiguous. It is explicitly vague and implicitly passive-aggressive. The net result is a thoroughly unpleasant experience for the reader. I trust I make myself clear.

[Hal.]

Ophiolite ,

 

When he gives the answer to the question above in post #87 you will then have no reason to argue with it , if it is then taken to also be your opinion . I need then only ask CaptainPanic any question to know if you both agree .

 

It surprises me that you , Ophiolite , did not say the following ,

 

He sure as f*** speaks for me and the scientific community . Did we not give him the authority to speak for us ?

Edited September 29, 2011 by Hal.

[CaptainPanic]

CaptainPanic ,

 

Do you think you speak for everybody in the thread and the scientific community . Free yourself , Vrijheid zoals een kraai door de lucht .

 

An ice cube on a table takes heat from it's surroundings and a puddle is formed . Do you agree it has been Hal.'s melted ?

No, in post #86 I spoke for "a few people in this thread".

 

But I can speak for the entire scientific community when I say that it is vital for communications to be very clear about the definitions of the words we use to describe science... and that it is therefore very counter productive to just try to change a definition for no apparent reason.

[Hal.]

CaptainPanic ,

 

An ice cube on a table takes heat from it's surroundings and a puddle is formed . Do you agree it has been Hal.'s melted ?

[Ophiolite]

When he gives the answer to the question above in post #87 you will then have no reason to argue with it , if it is then taken to also be your opinion . I need then only ask CaptainPanic any question to know if you both agree .

Don't be cute. It simply confirms people's low opinion of you. Implicit in my remark is that Captain Panic's prior remarks in this thread reflect my own views up until this point. I think it likely that will continue to be the case, but I certainly do not assert it will be so.

 

You know, a reaonable person might say at this point, "So at least two of you have found my statements ambiguous. Perhaps I do have to work harder at writing clearly. Thanks for the input."

 

Feel free to copy and paste that into a post. Or continue to be misunderstood. It's your choice.

[CaptainPanic]

CaptainPanic ,

 

An ice cube on a table takes heat from it's surroundings and a puddle is formed . Do you agree it has been Hal.'s melted ?

I have decided that it is best to refuse the use of the word "Hal's Melted", even though I introduced it myself. I was wrong to do so, because the already existing terms cover the phenomenon better. Liquifying is the term I prefer because it does not need to be a reversible process - which is what we're talking about all the time...

 

So, to give a short answer to your question: No. I disagree. It melted. And if you wish to say it, you can also say it liquified.

[Hal.]

CaptainPanic ,

 

I'm not going to explain again the meaning of hal.'s melting for you . It exists as a term , it is there , Google it and you will return to its place of genesis .

 

Ophiolite ,

 

I write clearly , like you write clearly , company affects company .

 

 

 

[Ophiolite]

Hal,

if your readers tell you that you don't write clearly it is either arrogant or foolish or both to ignore the observation. I make a continuous effort to write clearly. When a reader tells me something I have written is unclear I try to express it differently. If they continue to have difficulties then I check on the comprehension of others. If they understandme I tend to suspect that the fualt in this instance may not be me. I see no evidence that you follow a logical process like this. That's fine, but just accept that you will continue to be misunderstood.

[Hal.]

Ophiolite ,

 

I follow a natural process to explain my point of view . I explain , I see if the person understands , if they don't , I explain , I see if the person understands , if they don't , I explain , at some point a person is just not going to understand for reasons unknown or is just , for want of no better description , taking the p*ss .

[insane_alien]

or your explanations fail to explain.

[Hal.]

insane_alien ,

 

Ja zeker , of niet .

 

 

[Hal.]

I'm going to make a suggestion .

 

I'll suggest that if a person has a material which is composed of different parts , a piece of mahogany for instance , if they show that they can separate and melt each constituent individually or in groups , then the overall total material shall be deemed to have melted . Does anyone disagree with this ?

[insane_alien]

I disagree.

 

In your scenario you are having to destroy the material by separation to achieve melting. so you aren't melting wood, you're melting components of wood individually.

 

its like taking a brick from a wall, destroying it and saying you've destroyed the wall.

 

if you can't melt the substance as a whole then it isn't melting.