Scioly.org

See rule 4.b.xi for details.

The specifics of the rules seem to prevent CO2 production from carbonic acid or similar, since the expansion has to be from a thermal reaction.

Does a thermal reaction mean that we have to change temperature in ? If we can change pressure, I was thinking about activating it with a pulley task where a piston is lifted.

raxu wrote:Does a thermal reaction mean that we have to change temperature in ? If we can change pressure, I was thinking about activating it with a pulley task where a piston is lifted.

I thought that it meant that the heat had to expand the piston, not vice versa.

andrew lorino wrote:

raxu wrote:Does a thermal reaction mean that we have to change temperature in ? If we can change pressure, I was thinking about activating it with a pulley task where a piston is lifted.

I thought that it meant that the heat had to expand the piston, not vice versa.

I thought the same as Andrew. The gas must gain thermal energy, and, as a result, expand.

I wonder if lighting a match in a sealed container would count.

ScottMaurer19 wrote:I wonder if lighting a match in a sealed container would count.

Maybe, the amount of gas wouldn't change (in theory), so the expansion would just be thermal, but proving that to an ES would be difficult.

andrew lorino wrote:

ScottMaurer19 wrote:I wonder if lighting a match in a sealed container would count.

Maybe, the amount of gas wouldn't change (in theory), so the expansion would just be thermal, but proving that to an ES would be difficult.

Your theory is incorrect. Check out this video for an example of a classic science experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwNFnOx5iEg

chalker wrote:

andrew lorino wrote:

ScottMaurer19 wrote:I wonder if lighting a match in a sealed container would count.

Maybe, the amount of gas wouldn't change (in theory), so the expansion would just be thermal, but proving that to an ES would be difficult.

Your theory is incorrect. Check out this video for an example of a classic science experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwNFnOx5iEg

The result is not because of a change in the amount of gas. This can be shown with the equation: 1mol O2 + 1mol C --> 1mol CO2 (Of course this doesn't factor in the other stuff in a match). Because the match is lit before the glass is placed atop it, the pressure remains equalized with the atmosphere whilst the temperature remains higher than datum. Once the match flame dies, the temperature decreases, and, according to Charles' law, the volume decreases. If the flame were lit in a sealed environment, the pressure should increase.

chalker wrote:

andrew lorino wrote:

ScottMaurer19 wrote:I wonder if lighting a match in a sealed container would count.

Maybe, the amount of gas wouldn't change (in theory), so the expansion would just be thermal, but proving that to an ES would be difficult.

Your theory is incorrect. Check out this video for an example of a classic science experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwNFnOx5iEg

Well if the volume decreases than I might have a hard time getting the gas to expand anyway (other than the initial burn).

andrew lorino wrote:

chalker wrote:

andrew lorino wrote:
Maybe, the amount of gas wouldn't change (in theory), so the expansion would just be thermal, but proving that to an ES would be difficult.

Your theory is incorrect. Check out this video for an example of a classic science experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwNFnOx5iEg

The result is not because of a change in the amount of gas. This can be shown with the equation: 1mol O2 + 1mol C --> 1mol CO2 (Of course this doesn't factor in the other stuff in a match). Because the match is lit before the glass is placed atop it, the pressure remains equalized with the atmosphere whilst the temperature remains higher than datum. Once the match flame dies, the temperature decreases, and, according to Charles' law, the volume decreases. If the flame were lit in a sealed environment, the pressure should increase.

You're right. Thanks for correcting me on what was an incorrect assumption.