Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: energy in the tank



There is another way to look at this, more from a nuclear physics point of
view. Given the same set of atoms bound together in different molecules,
the more tightly bound the LESS MASS is present.

Energy changes are mass changes (albeit normally very tiny mass changes).
However, we DO tend to think of mass as 'stuff', as real. So if mass and
energy are equivalent, then why isn't energy 'stuff' and 'real'?

Jim???

Rick

**********************************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
rtarara@saintmarys.edu

FREE PHYSICS INSTRUCTIONAL SOFTWARE
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
PC and MAC software
NEW! SIMLAB2001--DYNAMIC CARTS now available.
CD-ROMs now available
******************************************************



----- Original Message -----
From: "John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: energy in the tank


Daniel Schroeder2 wrote:
Chemical bonds store negative energy.

Then BC wrote:
depends on your zero

Then Daniel Schroeder2 responded:

No it doesn't.


This seems to be Proof by Bold Assertion.

My students don't get credit, not even partial
credit, for PbBA.

Would somebody care to take a stab at giving
a _reason_ (you know, a physics reason) why
we must represent chemical-bond energy levels
as negative?

In addition to innumerable manifestly incorrect
and implausible formulations, there are two fairly
plausible formulations to consider:

1) A weak bond has a smallish negative energy,
while a strong bond has a more-negative energy.

2) A weak bond has a higher positive energy,
while a strong bond has a less-positive energy.

I think we all agree that formulation (1) is allowed
by classical physics. If there is a reason why
formulation (2) is not AT LEAST as allowable, I
haven't seen it.

(In fact what little I know about general
relativity seems to favor formulation (2),
although this is irrelevant to chemistry by
many orders of magnitude.)

=================

It would clearly be a fallacy to speak of releasing
energy by breaking bonds. But the fallacy attaches
to the breaking, not to the bonds. Combustion involves
breaking weak bonds and replacing them with stronger
bonds, and it is the _last_ step that liberates energy.