Seals Blowing Out: Epidemic?
- Thread starter dave green
- Start date
I stand corrected as to the reason for the thickness difference of medieval Cathedral window glass. I am referencing an article below from Science News that shows this clarification apparently occured in 1998. I learned this in college some 20 years before that, and it was prevailing scientific thought at that time (not 'urban legend'). Thank you for the edification. Yes, you did help me grow (that makes this a good day!).
As for glass being amorphous and technically not a solid, I stand behind that statement. As glass cools, it's apparent viscosity increases, but it never transitions into a crystalline structure. The argument may degrade into a battle of semantics.
- Messages
- 1,043
- Reaction score
- 0
<span style="font-size: 17px">Conclusion
</span> There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?". In terms of molecular dynamics and thermodynamics it is possible to justify various different views that it is a highly viscous liquid, an amorphous solid, or simply that glass is another state of matter that is neither liquid nor solid. The difference is semantic. In terms of its material properties we can do little better. There is no clear definition of the distinction between solids and highly viscous liquids. All such phases or states of matter are idealisations of real material properties. Nevertheless, from a more common sense point of view, glass should be considered a solid since it is rigid according to everyday experience. The use of the term "supercooled liquid" to describe glass still persists, but is considered by many to be an unfortunate misnomer that should be avoided. In any case, claims that glass panes in old windows have deformed due to glass flow have never been substantiated. Examples of Roman glassware and calculations based on measurements of glass visco-properties indicate that these claims cannot be true. The observed features are more easily explained as a result of the imperfect methods used to make glass window panes before the float glass process was invented.
I copied this from the web, I only wish I was that smart.lol
</span> There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?". In terms of molecular dynamics and thermodynamics it is possible to justify various different views that it is a highly viscous liquid, an amorphous solid, or simply that glass is another state of matter that is neither liquid nor solid. The difference is semantic. In terms of its material properties we can do little better. There is no clear definition of the distinction between solids and highly viscous liquids. All such phases or states of matter are idealisations of real material properties. Nevertheless, from a more common sense point of view, glass should be considered a solid since it is rigid according to everyday experience. The use of the term "supercooled liquid" to describe glass still persists, but is considered by many to be an unfortunate misnomer that should be avoided. In any case, claims that glass panes in old windows have deformed due to glass flow have never been substantiated. Examples of Roman glassware and calculations based on measurements of glass visco-properties indicate that these claims cannot be true. The observed features are more easily explained as a result of the imperfect methods used to make glass window panes before the float glass process was invented.
I copied this from the web, I only wish I was that smart.lol
Chris, we all have our own fields of genius, or at least I believe that. I love to learn, and to share and interact with others in the learning process.
That said, having worked in a materials science R&D group at a big corporation, I can tell you that some consider these sorts of discussions 'fun'............... Anybody have a couple of Motrin :sick: ?
I originally included the Cathedral glass
- Messages
- 607
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes glass is a amorphous SOLID. Because it is just that you can't pour it. Your correct on the observation it doesn't crysatlize. But that just means it's another breed of dog not dog food. If you threw obsidian at me you would knock me out. If you threw water at me I'd be wet. Really easy to grasp it's not like plasma that's an iffy. If you would like to come by sometime I can let you look thru my microscope. Ice crystalizes and locks together more easily this is true. While glass is more like beads but when they are smashed together they are not flat so the friction does not allow it to move because it's amorphous SOLID. So the molecules lock together like any other solid it's just doesn't have the same kind of friction. I read here on the web someone describe it 1 time. Glass are like cars in traffic when it becomes rush our they slow down when there's an accident it gets so congested you can't move anymore and you stop. Unlike other materials that just go from liquid to crystal and stop.
- Messages
- 507
- Reaction score
- 0
So it's safe to put water into my 125 that's been sitting dry for over two years?
First, I want to say that I am enjoying this debate and respect your opinions. However, I think that you are oversimplifying the issue. It is not at all cut and dried.
There are many substances that span the viscosity spectrum from low viscosity liquids, to extremely high viscosity, like glass. Using the extremely different properties of water and obsidian to make a point is useful. If you were to make contact with water at a high enough velocity, it too could hurt or kill you just like obsidian. Instead of water we could also substitute oil, mercury, resin, butter, peanut butter or glass. This list has a more gradual increase of viscosities across several substances at room temperature.
The molecules of glass (silicon dioxide) do not "lock together like any other solid" as you stated. The atomic radius of silicon is too large. As a result the atoms cannot get close enough to form a suitable matrix from which crystals can form. Because the distances are so large, the interatomic attraction forces are consequently too weak to allow it:
(inverse square law/electrostatic attraction: F= Kq1q2/r^2)
- Messages
- 5,121
- Reaction score
- 7
NO NO Mr Bill !!the water will mix with the glass at such an alarming rate that a black glass hole will form creating a star gate into a dimension where people are kept as pets in a sea of artificial atmosphere.
- Messages
- 607
- Reaction score
- 0
Lmao
- Messages
- 607
- Reaction score
- 0
ichthyoid;596518 said:First, I want to say that I am enjoying this debate and respect your opinions. However, I think that you are oversimplifying the issue. It is not at all cut and dried.
Ok here's an even easier answer for you. We did this in college 15 years ago. But just google " urban legend glass" see what you get. It's next to Bigfoot. I'm sorry they taught you this in school here in Georgia
^^ that's a great idea... however... most people won't buy the same electronics equipment (make/model) to replace a unit that stopped working..
and I can pretty well guarantee that a tank manufacturer that produces a product that will only last 5 years WONT see any repeat business...
Mainly because best case scenario when a tank fails, it will "wet the floor" worst case, it will shatter and flood the whole house..
true... (for instance, there are only 3 places that mass produce carbon fiber or aluminum bike frames - yet there are literally, HUNDREDS of bike manufacturers)
BUT... that may mean that your replacement equipment came from the same manufacturing facility, but it doesn't mean that you're giving your money to the same company..
BUT... that may mean that your replacement equipment came from the same manufacturing facility, but it doesn't mean that you're giving your money to the same company..
- Messages
- 607
- Reaction score
- 0
Yep I pick up from there all the time in south Carolina
- Messages
- 607
- Reaction score
- 0
But also most often like elxtrolux they have near nothing to do with the design. Each company has a list of specific parts that go into a product. They are just the assembling plant not the designers.
RaisedOnNintendo;596546 wrote:ichthyoid;596518 said:First, I want to say that I am enjoying this debate and respect your opinions. However, I think that you are oversimplifying the issue. It is not at all cut and dried.
Ok here's an even easier answer for you. We did this in college 15 years ago. But just google " urban legend glass" see what you get. It's next to Bigfoot. I'm sorry they taught you this in school here in Georgia
We are figuratively standing at the intersection of ill-defined areas of physics. We both feel our positions have merit. I'll leave it at that.
FWIW-I have not been condescending in my replies to your statements. To the contrary, I have stated that I respected your opinion. Comparing my position to big foot, fools gold, etc. was uncalled for-IMO.
That is one thing when it my DVD player or something, it is something completely different when it will dump X hundred gallons of water in my home and potentially kill hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of livestock.
Nothing last forever, but it would be better if they stated 'You must have this product resealed by so-in-so professional resealer every X years of use'. Wishful thinking I suppose.
