The weight of the earth

> 10 years ago
Reply
Register to post, see what you've read, and subscribe to topics.
FormulaNova
FormulaNova
WA
15107 posts
WA, 15107 posts
7 Jul 2012 5:34pm
Dawn Patrol said...

If you burn something in a closed environment, say in a glass container that was air tight, the weight of the system wouldn't change.

In an open environment it would appear that there is less weight as some would be lost to the environment.


As I remember the experiment we did in science class, we burned some wood in a test tube and then poured it onto some paper, and then weighed it. When it was weighed, it was in an open environment, so it was after any gases were removed/ignored. I can't actually remember if it was burned in a sealed test tube, but I doubt it.

It weighed more after combustion.

Dawn Patrol
Dawn Patrol
WA
1991 posts
WA, 1991 posts
7 Jul 2012 6:02pm
That would still be an open environment.

In total the mass of your wood at the start plus the air etc, would be the same as the burnt wood and the air after the reaction.

It's like the nutri grain add . You only get out what you put in. You can't finish with more mass than what was there to begin with.

FormulaNova
FormulaNova
WA
15107 posts
WA, 15107 posts
7 Jul 2012 6:24pm
Dawn Patrol said...

That would still be an open environment.

In total the mass of your wood at the start plus the air etc, would be the same as the burnt wood and the air after the reaction.

It's like the nutri grain add . You only get out what you put in. You can't finish with more mass than what was there to begin with.




Agreed. Of course the mass is the same, but when you weigh it after combustion, you are now weighing the oxidized material, so it does weigh more.
Ian K
Ian K
WA
4170 posts
WA, 4170 posts
7 Jul 2012 6:50pm
FormulaNova said...

Ian K said...

FormulaNova said...

So, when we burn something, are we adding mass or losing mass?

When we combine something with oxygen, doesn't it get heavier?




I'd say the energy, E, released as heat and radiation, as a mini chemical rather than a nuke mushroom cloud , would lead to a reduction in mass of the combustion products by E/(c^2)

This is my understanding from the popular science novel "E = mc^2" by David Bodanis. My sister gave the book to me years ago but it's still available in departure terminal bookshops. Or you can borrow it. It's a good read.




So, Ian, are you saying that the Earth is getting heavier from all the solar radiation hitting it and being used in photosynthesis?

My understanding of this concept is very limited. I remember in high school, doing the 'burn some wood in a test tube and weigh it before and after' experiment. Surprisingly ours weighed more, and we were the only group in the class to get it right. Ahh, those were the days when science was simple

Wouldn't the extra mass from the oxygen atoms exceed the mass lost from the released of energy? (I will completely ignore the fact that some of it escapes as gas )


Yeah, I wouldn't mind borrowing that book. If it's 'popular science' I might just be able to keep up!


Yes the products of photosynthesis should be heavier than the raw ingredients.

The mass of the oxygen atoms swamp any relativistic changes in mass. The oxygen has been weighed in with the ingredients as well as the products of the combustion.

The mass changes are very small in everyday reactions so we'd use chemistry methods to follow all the energy exchanges. In the test tube you'd assume the mass didn't change because it would be undetectable with the laboratory scales.

All this wouldn't have much influence on the earth's axis of rotation. But then you know the effect that the butterfly in the Amazon had on the weather in New York.

Let me know when you next pass by the 'gong. I've got the book handy.



Sailhack
Sailhack
VIC
5000 posts
VIC, 5000 posts
7 Jul 2012 11:32pm
Bazinga!
Please Register, or first...
Topics Subscribe Reply