Do you understand what heat is ? Do you understand how energy from oxidation (fuel burning) excites electrons in your metal atom ? Again read this article :
. You need to understand that in gaseous form
radiation is the main mode of transferring heat . There is very little chance your electron in metal atom would get energy from direct kinetic contact , because burning aircraft fuel is dispersed .
Yes, I do understand heat. I spent 4 years of college studying chemistry and 5 and half years in grad school studying and teaching thermodynamics. So yeah, I do understand heat, more than you can imagine.
So you agree that metal atom in a fuel CAN be excited to emit photons? Isn't this what you have been against? Isn't it your whole point that color from the a flame comes from hydrocarbon burning, but not from metal atoms being excited? Now you are shouting out that metal atoms can be excited!
OK, about thermal radiation. The relationship governing the thermal radiation vs. overall combustion heat release in a flame is: D = [(Qad/Qo)]*[(aVaT)/(Qo)], where D is the fraction of heat released from a flame in the form of radiation, Qad is the energy of radiation, Qo is the total energy of heat in a flame, V is flame volume and and T is flame temp, etc. etc. etc... If you carry out the calculation, you will find that D is only related to the overall heat by the 1/24 power. This means that the irradiative fraction is insensitive to the overall combustion heat release. Thus, any color change observed in a flame cannot be caused by thermal radiation.
And I have NEVER mentioned anything about electrons absorbing energy from kinetic contact. Kinetic energy has absolutely nothing to do with exciting valence electrons in a way we have been talking about.
No ! When you have burning gas , heat (kinetic energy of atoms or molecules ) cannot be transferred to other gaseous molecules or atoms buy conduction or convection - because probability of collision between molecules is relatively low .
That is why it is very difficult to heat or cool gas with other gas - you need to use solid object or fluid .
You are talking about ideal gas here. It does not exist in the real world. And by suggesting thermal radiation is the main way of heat conducting in an AB, are you saying that most of energy from the burning of fuels in the AB has been released in the form of thermal radiation? IF so, are you implying that the purpose of an AB is to generate beautiful flames? And in an AB, most of the energy generated from burning fuel has been converted to kinetic energy. For crying out loud, that is what the AB is for. People did not put an AB on a plane to watch for the beautiful flames. The AB is designed to convert the combustion energy from burning fuel to kinetic energy to push the plane forward and most of the the heat has been converted to that purpose.
Again wrong analogy . Atomic bomb produces energy by itself . On the other hand electron excitation needs energy from other sources . What is that other source ? Burning fuel (i.e. oxidation) . How does that energy comes to electron ? Mostly by radiation , since metal atoms don"t have physical contact with hydro-carbon molecules .
Uh.. atomic bomb does not generate energy by itself. Nothing does. Ever heard of conservation of energy? Nothing can generate energy... It has to come from somewhere, even for atomic bombs. You still need an energy input.
Again, burning flame does not give metal atoms energy and does not excite electrons. What the flame/heat does is to turn metal ions into their atomic form. Most of the metal atoms absorb/emit electromagnetic wave within the visible range. This means once these atoms become gaseous, their valence electrons absorb visible light and get excited.
Let's step back and assume you are correct (which you are not) and assume that metal atoms absorb energy from the flame. That does not contradict my theory at all. My argument has always been: valence electrons within metal atoms get excited and emit light at the visible range and that could be potentially why we see different colored flames in an AB. Who cares where the energy input comes from. As long as these metal atoms emit light and can influence the color of the flame, my theory stands. And you seem to agree with me that metal atoms can emit light after being excited. So you should agree with me on my theory. And lastly, please let me set this straight. Excitation of valence electrons in metal atoms has nothing to do with burning fuel. The burning fuel only turns metal ions into their gaseous atomic forms, which allows electromagnetic wave absorption to become easier.
You seem to want to fight me on the importance of the burning fuel. Your initial position was that most of the flame color should come from burning of the fuel. It seems that I have convinced you that metal atoms do emit light and do influence flame color. Now you try to argue with me that the energy absorbed by the metal atoms comes from the fuel. No matter where the energy input comes from, the end result is electrons within metal atoms get excited and emit light. This has been my point all this time. And you seem to finally agree to that. Yet, you still want to yell at me and to prove me wrong...
Well , if you have a stove that is 10 000 times bigger then your microwave , what do you think who has more energy ?
Well, if I have 10,000 butane burners and one mega microwave, I will bet on the microwave! And if I have a huge stove that people use to generate steam for steam engines and 10,000 little pathetic tabletop microwaves, it would be the stove. I hope you see the point that I am trying to get across here. The actual numerical does not matter. The point that I have been trying desperately to show you is that you cannot compare the two types of energy. They work based on completely different mechanisms and different principles, thus cannot be compared quantitatively.
