Prev: M's Lemma: For all primes p let 6=283
Next: Call for papers (Deadline Extended): TMFCS-10, USA, July 2010
From: M Purcell on 28 Mar 2010 22:37
On Mar 28, 6:50 pm, Jennifer The Book Extraordinare
<lipstickchic...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> message in a bottle(s) ??

I suppose, I was imagining it more like the wind carrying a whisper
but it is a material transfer. How would a signal travel in the heat
source if we varied the water flow?
From: M Purcell on 29 Mar 2010 00:16
On Mar 28, 7:37 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 6:50 pm, Jennifer The Book Extraordinare
>
> <lipstickchic...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > message in a bottle(s) ??
>
> I suppose, I was imagining it more like the wind carrying a whisper
> but it is a material transfer. How would a signal travel in the heat
> source if we varied the water flow?

Rather like an electrical signal I guess, maybe it could be used as
part of a thermal circuit.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 31 Mar 2010 13:28
On Mar 27, 10:47 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 6:30 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 12:51 pm, mstem...(a)walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
> > wrote:
>
> > > In article <6acc186e-f5b6-4c39-8435-fe303fc88...(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > > >On Mar 5, 1:08 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> heat is infrared lightwaves. there is nothing wrong
>
> > > >This statement on heat merely worsens the conflict, for now you are
> > > >claiming that heat propagates at the speed of light,
>
> > > There are three modes of heat transfer:
> > > 1. Radiation
> > > 2. Conduction
> > > 3. Convection
>
> > > The first of these, the one that's relevant to spudnik's statement,
> > > does propagate at the speed of light.
>
> > > > yet the
> > > >conduction of heat through a solid is extremely slow;
>
> > > Yup, conduction is much slower than radiation. So is convection. But,
> > > those aren't propagation by infrared E-M waves, but by other mechanisms,
> > > so they're irrelevant.
>
> > No Michael.
>
> > His argument is in response to my presentation.
> > I am discussing heat conduction.
>
> > Particularly I am discussing the discrepancy between the rate of
> > propagation of heat to the rate of propagation of sound, both of which
> > are accepted in modernity to be 'vibrating atoms'. This discussion
> > does not take place in advanced physics, e.g. Kittel's Solid State
> > Physics.
>
> > Would you care to deny that the mechanism of conduction of heat
> > through say a bar of steel is via atomic translation? What about
> > sound?
>
> > Particularly, I may take a nail with a very sharp point and hammer it
> > into one end of the bar of steel and observe that a local perturbation
> > does conduct through the bar very rapidly. Next take an acetylene
> > torch at full blast applied to the end of the bar and observe how
> > remarkably slow that heat will transfer to the other end of the bar.
>
> > The interpretation of heat as vibrating atoms is flawed. There must be
> > a more loosely coupled interaction at work in the conduction of heat.
>
> Indeed, the conduction of heat is not as organized as a wave, it's
> more analogous to the diffusion of a scent.

Well the rate of propagation of a scent is actually pretty impressive
I think, compared to the rate of conduction of heat. Interesting. Nice
contribution. I agree that the informational problem is not coherent,
but this only adds to the criticism of the interpretation of heat as
vibrating atoms. You are the first that I have seen to accept this
criticism. I hope I am not stuffing words in your mouth.

You use the word 'organized' yet would we call white noise organized?
Here there has to be a stronger characterization I think. Even if we
put 100 small white noise sources up to a bar of steel we may still
possibly measure the 101st's rate of propagation so long as it comes
alone after the others are established, and we have a sufficient power
measuring device. Then too, we'll be heating the bar with our sound
devices won't we...

I think this recognition that heat is actually open to
reinterpretation should be placed alongside the mysteries of mass that
we see in present day. If anything this should be good news to the
string theorist types, but instead they fit their theory in beneath
existing physics.

From the informational perspective we can use heat to signal, and its
low pass effect can be helpful for some signal processing. As a delay
line this is kind of sweet. So for instance a piece of steel wire and
a piece of copper wire terminated with thermocouples would show unique
signals even when applied to the same variable heat source. Varying
their length should alter the filtering mechanism. In terms of duty
cycle measurements or power measure these should be fine. Some of the
best electrical RMS measuring devices use heat measurement don't
they?

Unlike other signalling mechanisms the maximum usable frequency of a
heat conducted signal varies inversely with distance.

- Tim
From: M Purcell on 31 Mar 2010 14:06
On Mar 31, 10:28 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 27, 10:47 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 6:30 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 24, 12:51 pm, mstem...(a)walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > In article <6acc186e-f5b6-4c39-8435-fe303fc88...(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > > > >On Mar 5, 1:08 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> heat is infrared lightwaves.  there is nothing wrong
>
> > > > >This statement on heat merely worsens the conflict, for now you are
> > > > >claiming that heat propagates at the speed of light,
>
> > > > There are three modes of heat transfer:
> > > > 1. Radiation
> > > > 2. Conduction
> > > > 3. Convection
>
> > > > The first of these, the one that's relevant to spudnik's statement,
> > > > does propagate at the speed of light.
>
> > > > >                  yet the
> > > > >conduction of heat through a solid is extremely slow;
>
> > > > Yup, conduction is much slower than radiation. So is convection. But,
> > > > those aren't propagation by infrared E-M waves, but by other mechanisms,
> > > > so they're irrelevant.
>
> > > No Michael.
>
> > > His argument is in response to my presentation.
> > > I am discussing heat conduction.
>
> > > Particularly I am discussing the discrepancy between the rate of
> > > propagation of heat to the rate of propagation of sound, both of which
> > > are accepted in modernity to be 'vibrating atoms'. This discussion
> > > does not take place in advanced physics, e.g. Kittel's Solid State
> > > Physics.
>
> > > Would you care to deny that the mechanism of conduction of heat
> > > through say a bar of steel is via atomic translation? What about
> > > sound?
>
> > > Particularly, I may take a nail with a very sharp point and hammer it
> > > into one end of the bar of steel and observe that a local perturbation
> > > does conduct through the bar very rapidly. Next take an acetylene
> > > torch at full blast applied to the end of the bar and observe how
> > > remarkably slow that heat will transfer to the other end of the bar.
>
> > > The interpretation of heat as vibrating atoms is flawed. There must be
> > > a more loosely coupled interaction at work in the conduction of heat.
>
> > Indeed, the conduction of heat is not as organized as a wave, it's
> > more analogous to the diffusion of a scent.
>
> Well the rate of propagation of a scent is actually pretty impressive
> I think, compared to the rate of conduction of heat. Interesting. Nice
> contribution. I agree that the informational problem is not coherent,
> but this only adds to the criticism of the interpretation of heat as
> vibrating atoms. You are the first that I have seen to accept this
> criticism. I hope I am not stuffing words in your mouth.
>
> You use the word 'organized' yet would we call white noise organized?
> Here there has to be a stronger characterization I think. Even if we
> put 100 small white noise sources up to a bar of steel we may still
> possibly measure the 101st's rate of propagation so long as it comes
> alone after the others are established, and we have a sufficient power
> measuring device. Then too, we'll be heating the bar with our sound
> devices won't we...
>
> I think this recognition that heat is actually open to
> reinterpretation should be placed alongside the mysteries of mass that
> we see in present day. If anything this should be good news to the
> string theorist types, but instead they fit their theory in beneath
> existing physics.
>
> From the informational perspective we can use heat to signal, and its
> low pass effect can be helpful for some signal processing. As a delay
> line this is kind of sweet. So for instance a piece of steel wire and
> a piece of copper wire terminated with thermocouples would show unique
> signals even when applied to the same variable heat source. Varying
> their length should alter the filtering mechanism. In terms of duty
> cycle measurements or power measure these should be fine. Some of the
> best electrical RMS measuring devices use heat measurement don't
> they?
>
> Unlike other signalling mechanisms the maximum usable frequency of a
> heat conducted signal varies inversely with distance.

I accept any rational critism but your critism of physics seems
unfounded since you seem to be ignorant of it. Scent is distributed by
Brownian Motion.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 31 Mar 2010 19:58
On Mar 31, 2:06 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 10:28 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 10:47 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 27, 6:30 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 24, 12:51 pm, mstem...(a)walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > In article <6acc186e-f5b6-4c39-8435-fe303fc88...(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > > > > >On Mar 5, 1:08 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> heat is infrared lightwaves. there is nothing wrong
>
> > > > > >This statement on heat merely worsens the conflict, for now you are
> > > > > >claiming that heat propagates at the speed of light,
>
> > > > > There are three modes of heat transfer:
> > > > > 1. Radiation
> > > > > 2. Conduction
> > > > > 3. Convection
>
> > > > > The first of these, the one that's relevant to spudnik's statement,
> > > > > does propagate at the speed of light.
>
> > > > > > yet the
> > > > > >conduction of heat through a solid is extremely slow;
>
> > > > > Yup, conduction is much slower than radiation. So is convection. But,
> > > > > those aren't propagation by infrared E-M waves, but by other mechanisms,
> > > > > so they're irrelevant.
>
> > > > No Michael.
>
> > > > His argument is in response to my presentation.
> > > > I am discussing heat conduction.
>
> > > > Particularly I am discussing the discrepancy between the rate of
> > > > propagation of heat to the rate of propagation of sound, both of which
> > > > are accepted in modernity to be 'vibrating atoms'. This discussion
> > > > does not take place in advanced physics, e.g. Kittel's Solid State
> > > > Physics.
>
> > > > Would you care to deny that the mechanism of conduction of heat
> > > > through say a bar of steel is via atomic translation? What about
> > > > sound?
>
> > > > Particularly, I may take a nail with a very sharp point and hammer it
> > > > into one end of the bar of steel and observe that a local perturbation
> > > > does conduct through the bar very rapidly. Next take an acetylene
> > > > torch at full blast applied to the end of the bar and observe how
> > > > remarkably slow that heat will transfer to the other end of the bar.
>
> > > > The interpretation of heat as vibrating atoms is flawed. There must be
> > > > a more loosely coupled interaction at work in the conduction of heat.
>
> > > Indeed, the conduction of heat is not as organized as a wave, it's
> > > more analogous to the diffusion of a scent.
>
> > Well the rate of propagation of a scent is actually pretty impressive
> > I think, compared to the rate of conduction of heat. Interesting. Nice
> > contribution. I agree that the informational problem is not coherent,
> > but this only adds to the criticism of the interpretation of heat as
> > vibrating atoms. You are the first that I have seen to accept this
> > criticism. I hope I am not stuffing words in your mouth.
>
> > You use the word 'organized' yet would we call white noise organized?
> > Here there has to be a stronger characterization I think. Even if we
> > put 100 small white noise sources up to a bar of steel we may still
> > possibly measure the 101st's rate of propagation so long as it comes
> > alone after the others are established, and we have a sufficient power
> > measuring device. Then too, we'll be heating the bar with our sound
> > devices won't we...
>
> > I think this recognition that heat is actually open to
> > reinterpretation should be placed alongside the mysteries of mass that
> > we see in present day. If anything this should be good news to the
> > string theorist types, but instead they fit their theory in beneath
> > existing physics.
>
> > From the informational perspective we can use heat to signal, and its
> > low pass effect can be helpful for some signal processing. As a delay
> > line this is kind of sweet. So for instance a piece of steel wire and
> > a piece of copper wire terminated with thermocouples would show unique
> > signals even when applied to the same variable heat source. Varying
> > their length should alter the filtering mechanism. In terms of duty
> > cycle measurements or power measure these should be fine. Some of the
> > best electrical RMS measuring devices use heat measurement don't
> > they?
>
> > Unlike other signalling mechanisms the maximum usable frequency of a
> > heat conducted signal varies inversely with distance.
>
> I accept any rational critism but your critism of physics seems
> unfounded since you seem to be ignorant of it. Scent is distributed by
> Brownian Motion.

Yes, you are leaning on the gas form to make your way. And it takes
just a tiny bit of scent vapor in the air to be detected. I suppose we
could go on to challenge adiabatic type behaviors, but I'd just as
soon stick to the solid form. The gas form is much more challenging.
Place a gas in outer space and baboom! it distributes itself out.
Place a solid in outer space and it just sits there, solid as ever.

Will you extend your claim of Brownian motion onto the solid?

I'm not so sure that diffusion and brownian motion are exactly the
same as you are claiming. Here is a statement:
'Brownian motion is observed in molecules that are so large that
they are not driven by their own thermal energy but by collisions with
solvent particles.'
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion
I'll admit the difference is subtle and they are closely related.

Diffusion does not require any temperature difference as I've
attempted to discuss. Your bottle of scent can be the same temperature
as the air it is in. Still, I do think that the example is a nice
addition to the conversation. Yes, when you open it it may cool a bit
as the scent evaporates. This is very complicated stuff and I believe
that the solid example is a more simplified environment to puzzle
over.

- Tim
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: M's Lemma: For all primes p let 6=283
Next: Call for papers (Deadline Extended): TMFCS-10, USA, July 2010