Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #524352

Re: Is Glass a Liquid?

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/02/2015 10:41 PM, Angelo wrote:
> Il giorno venerdì 2 ottobre 2015 18:19:53 UTC+2, benj ha scritto:
>> On 10/02/2015 02:55 AM, Angelo wrote:
>>> Il giorno venerdì 2 ottobre 2015 07:39:05 UTC+2, pnal...@gmail.com ha scritto:
>>>> On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 8:01:39 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's been known forever that most glass is just a very viscous
>>>>> liquid. It's easy to prove.
>>>>
>>>> Not so fast...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cmog.org/article/does-glass-flow
>>>>
>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-fiction-glass-liquid/
>>>>
>>>> http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C01/C01Links/www.ualberta.ca/~bderksen/florin.html
>>>>
>>>> http://io9.com/the-glass-is-a-liquid-myth-has-finally-been-destroyed-496190894
>>>>
>>>> ... every one of these sources says otherwise...
>>>
>>> It is hard to notice flow of glass in windows, bottles or common
>>> objects.
>>> A large lens in a refracting telescope offers a much more sensitive
>>> probe:
>>> "In very large apertures, there is also a problem of lens sagging, a result of gravity deforming glass. Since a lens can only be held in place by its edge, the center of a large lens sags due to gravity, distorting the images it produces. The largest practical lens size in a refracting telescope is around 1 meter (39 in)."
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refracting_telescope#Technical_considerations
>>>
>>> Perhaps this fact contributed in part to the abandonment of large
>>> refractors (gravity deforming lenses).
>>>
>>> regards
>>> Angelo
>>
>> Note that the idiot video Wormley linked denies the above obvious result
>> and flatly states that telescope mirrors and lenses do not sag. Which
>> is, of course idiotic and false. I love the study on AMBER to prove that
>> glass does not flow! May I suggest that next time they use AMBER COLORED
>> GLASS instead.
>
> Indeed.
>
> And curiously BTW, our beloved electron (the particle) owes its name to
> the (ancient, classical) greek name of amber: elektron.
>
>> Note that many telescope mirrors are made of special materials with near
>> zero expansion co-efficients and may or may not be non-crystalline
>> glass. To the question is not "sag" but rather are the sags permanent.
>>
>> As I said, in spite of all the nonsense and misinformation and
>> misinterpretation of transparent crystalline substances as glasses,
>> glass flow is EASY to prove. I've PERSONALLY seen the proof! Where? It
>> was in the glass shop on campus. There in a corner was a bundle of glass
>> tubing that had been leaning there for God knows how many years. Each
>> tube was beautifully and permanently bent under gravity. And could not
>> be straightened out without heating or turning it the the other way and
>> waiting years. We are talking plain old soda-lime window glass here.
>
> Perfect.
>
>> Glass is a very viscous liquid. Period.
>
> Yes, but a little more complicated: common glass is a mixture, only
> rarely a pure substance. Accordingly it has a softening range, not
> a proper melting point.
>
>> The church window fallacy with the help of idiot journalists has created
>> major havoc in the story of glass viscosity. Again: The church window
>> sag is FALSE, but sagging glass is TRUE!
>>
>> Here's the theory guys: Crystalline substances have bonds between the
>> atoms held by electrostatic fields (electron cloud) such that when force
>> is applied to the substance it deflects these fields which push back.
>> The force of the fields does not change over time and the bonds do not
>> break over time. The material does not flow.
>>
>> Glasses on the other hand have molecules arranged in a jumble with only
>> some of the bonds of the crystalline type and the rest of lower energy
>
> That's true but I think that these energies are however within the same
> order of magnitude, roughly speaking.
>
>> attractions. So the result is because of thermal statistics periodically
>> enough energy appears to shift one of those lower energy bonds. If an
>> outside force is applied at that time this will direct the shift in a
>> certain direction. Hence when enough of these low energy bonds move, the
>> object "flows" or bends permanently.
>
> Neat explanation. Glass doesn't have a unit cell but the local
> arrangements of atoms do not differ much here and there geometrically
> or energetically. So they are enough exchangeable even at room temp *
> if an external force acts upon: sort of a sliding of a pseudo-unit cell.
>
>> Note that the more heat you apply the more bonds are broken and moved
>
> Only a little addition:
> The more heat you apply the more bonds are statistically broken.
>
> But OK
>
>> and hence the more the material can move and the less viscous it
>> becomes. Gosh the theory actually works!
>
> Perfect, again.
>
>> You're welcome.
>
> You are always welcome.
>
> regards
> Angelo
>
> * Even for a strong bond there's a non zero probability of being broken
> if it can reform with only a very slight displacement, at a given temp.

As you and I point out, things are not quite as neat as I presented them 
as things people call glass are a mixture of things including crystals. 
Some things people call glass are actually crystalline and don't sag. So 
there is a lot devil in the details. But generally speaking glasses of 
the ordinary window type are viscous.






-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Is Glass a Liquid? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 19:11 -0500
  no, and yes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 18:28 -0700
  Re: Is Glass a Liquid? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-02 01:19 +0000
  Re: Is Glass a Liquid? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 23:01 -0400
    Re: Is Glass a Liquid? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-01 22:38 -0700
      Re: Is Glass a Liquid? Angelo <patrizio.pan-2002@libero.it> - 2015-10-01 23:55 -0700
        Re: Is Glass a Liquid? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 06:33 -0700
          Re: Is Glass a Liquid? Angelo <patrizio.pan-2002@libero.it> - 2015-10-02 07:14 -0700
        Re: Is Glass a Liquid? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 12:19 -0400
          Re: Is Glass a Liquid? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 15:43 -0700
            Re: Is Glass a Liquid? "Le Nymster" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-10-02 19:05 -0700
          Re: Is Glass a Liquid? Angelo <patrizio.pan-2002@libero.it> - 2015-10-02 19:41 -0700
            Re: Is Glass a Liquid? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 03:05 -0400
        Re: Is Glass a Liquid? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-02 17:07 -0500
          Re: Is Glass a Liquid? Angelo <patrizio.pan-2002@libero.it> - 2015-10-02 16:56 -0700
  Re: Is Glass a Liquid? Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2015-10-02 08:34 +0200
  Re: Is Glass a Liquid? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 10:48 -0700
  Re: Is Glass a Liquid? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-10-02 13:25 -0700
    Re: Is Glass a Liquid? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 15:27 -0700
  Re: Is Glass a Liquid? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 13:30 -0700
    Re: Is Glass a Liquid? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-10-02 14:31 -0700
    Re: Is Glass a Liquid? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 03:19 -0400
      Re: Is Glass a Liquid? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 10:12 -0700
        Re: Is Glass a Liquid? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-10-03 21:17 -0700
  Re: Is Glass a Liquid? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 14:43 -0700

csiph-web