[sdiy] Chemical Synth

[Magnus Danielson]

From: cheater <cheater at salsa.pl>
Subject: Re: [sdiy] Chemical Synth
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 09:59:30 +0200
Message-ID: <opsajxtgidwklk6x at mx.salsa.pl>

Interesting and totally out-of-nuttiness thread going on here...

> So anyways, that's where the voltage comes from. And the amperage?
> You can hear the sweeps and zips, but no pops. To remind, it's the amperage
> that creates the sound and frequency in electronic music (and amps, like in the
> circuit). Comparing this to a normal battery (which just gives nothing, and static
> if you move the connected cables around the anode/catode), I guess it all breaks
> down to the fact that, as some might know, water is a fluid.
> This fluid then allows the positive charges to move as well as negative charges.
> This creates impetum forces, which create the sweeps: as positive charges get closer
> to the negative charges, resistance lessens, thus amperage increases.
> 
> 
> No, you *can't* hear "atoms hitting atoms", and it's not getting amplified.
> But electricity resulting from that IS, if that's what you meant, Michael :)

Let's examin this a little closer... you both can't and can hear atoms hitting
atoms.

1) Atoms don't really hit each other in the same way as two balls or something.
   They don't have a hard surface like that. Rather, the repell each other due
   to the electrostatic forces of the near-field. However, they do behave much
   as if they where balls, and as they hit each other they both scatter from
   this.

2) When you hit two balls you can hear the bang as they hit each other since
   the chock goes through the ball and also out in the air. The transport of
   sound is nothing but a deviation in the static vibration of solids or static
   hittings (just a different magnitude of movement) of air molecules with
   each other and against the balls and our eardrums. This is just what we mean
   by sound, it's this change in pressure. Sound is a phenomene which exits in
   the macroscale of many many small events - the repeltion of atoms or their
   more static equalent of vibration in solids (which is just the same thing
   but repeltion occurs against all surrounding atoms at the same time and not
   on a case-by-case where as liquids is somewhere inbetween, where much of the
   change is to neighbors, but they shift around due to the violence of the
   movements so it's a changing scene all the time).

3) When atoms hit, there is no air there to carry this sound there... since the
   atoms are what constitutes air so if such atoms hit each other, they are
   surrounded by *real* vaccum and then somewhere in the neighborhood is fellow
   atoms. It is only as they repell each other that the news of this hit
   travels out. However, that travels thought another set of hits. This creates
   a constant noise of hits. The amount of noise is a measure of amount of
   energy stored in this system as movement energy, but we prefer to measure it
   as temperature. So how can we hear a single bang in the noise of all other
   bangs? It will litterary drown in the noise. Well, lower the temperature,
   then each bigger bang will appear more clearly.

Microscale/Macroscale comparisions is a bitch. Many of the things we do
normally only work in macroscale where as others only work on a microscale.
As soon as you get a large microscale model you end up with the heaviness of
simulation and you want a large one to make macroscale-like observations (which
we usually want to do) where as when you make a macroscale model for a too
small system it will deviate from the real world since it doesn't consider the
small-scale effects wich may still be present and predictions may be more and
more incorrect. Finding good tools to handle these two cases easilly so that
microscale and macroscale has a nice passover which is also simple to use and
make models in should be a real winner. People make these fundamental mistakes
over and over and over. When we say that something "doesn't scale" it is not
selldom that a microscale observation doesn't mean that a larger systems
performance - it's macroscale performance - is safely predictable from the
single instance. This is all so obvious when working with networks or other
systems of more or less coordinated "random" events. People may understand the
details, but the macroscale properties is hard to predict... unless you change
the fundamental microscale properties.

Chemistry is many times just macroscale atomic physics. Biochemistry is even
more macroscale.

Cheers,
Magnus