Just to be clear, you are NOT responsible for my frustration. RUclips is. I am more than thankful for the time, effort and dedication you show towards making those videos and that is the reason I subed. Thank you
By definition, glass is an amorphous or "non-crystalline" solid. This means that it is a solid that lacks to long-range modular structure that crystals exhibit. The idea that glass is a slow flowing liquid has been a widely circulated myth. This stems from the observation that most old panes of glass are thicker at their base. In reality, this varied thickness was a result of the glass production methods of the time and the glass was mounted with the thick side down in order to prevent
We actually used 2 types of glass. The first 2 clips were with fused quartz, and I believe the last one (were I put the subscribe link) was with a much softer pyrex. We didn't notice any difference in the final/initial transmitance.
Interesting. I didn't get the right answer, but I was on the right track! What I should have tried was thinking about the phase transition (solid->liquid) without heat, since I'm pretty sure heating a substance within a phase doesn't change it's transparency. Certainly I've never noticed a difference between water at 0C and at 100C!
I was talking to a chemist about this. So a glass is a solid at low temperatures (it has a definite shape), at high temperatures it is definitely a liquid. The difference between it and say quartz is that it isn't a crystal. I think myth busters actually did an episode on this. They can probably give a much better answer than me.
I'm a hobby level lampworker (glass blower). Apparently "sodium" is in reference to the wavelength (589 nm) and that's its brightest with borosilicate glass. Why? I don't know.. but the glasses we use all block sodium flare and without it you you don't see much of anything.. Might not see much afterwards either. Not as bad but you might think of it as watching someone weld without eye protection. When photographing someone using a torch all you get is a big orange ball. Unless through glasses.
I'm still experimenting with the format of these videos, I think I may put an aside at the start of future videos to check out the challenge vid before watching the answer. Thanks for the feedback.
So there are two things I should probably clear up. 1)The photons don't loose energy (otherwise they would change colour) rather you loose 10% of the photons in the light. 2) I realized after posting that transmittance is reduced by 2 effects, some from reflecting off the surface of the glass, and some from dissipation in the glass. That means it probably dissipates significantly less than 10% per centimetre.
I'm almost certain the image issues we had were from the infrared black body. The person recording the signal on the paper screen didn't have filtering glasses (They were nowhere near the torch or the molten glass) Most of the white light the camera was picking up on the screen wasn't actually visible to the naked eye, but was clearly picked up on camera. Out of curiosity, where do you think the sodium would come from?
cont... water from pooling at the base of the glass's fixture. (And though mounting panes of glass with the thick side down was the common practice. It is not uncommon to find them mounted with the thick side up. (Presumably do to human error.)) But with modern forms of glass production (eg. Float Glass) these variances in glass width are seldom seen. Sorry for jumping in and writing a novel on this comment.... But I hope that this explanation helps.
I definitely wouldn't go as far as saying it's a universal law, or even true most of the time. I only mean that a change of phase doesn't have to change transparency of the glass. The only thing this experiment showed was that the two types of glass I looked at stayed transparent to red and green light. Material science is ridiculously complex and would take a heck of a lot more than a short video or comment section to cover.
But, I also found this.. "When an oxygen-rich flame reacts with glass containing sodium the result is a bright yellow flame. The brightness of sodium flare can make it difficult for a lamp or flame worker to see their work."
Thanks for the video, I was watching shorts and saw a glass making video and the thought came in to my head, was the molten glass still transparent and the reason it looked opaque was due to the produced black body light overwhelming the light that made it through? Or did it change to actually being opaque. I don't have the means to test it but had an idea for a test. Have a wavelength detector and shine some monochromatic light with molten glass between them. If you were still able to detect the monochromatic light then the glass was transparent. I was thinking more in terms of like an LED bulb and like a sheet metal with hole in it to limit the lights path to detector but your method of laser through a spinning rod you melt was by far more simpler and in my opinion a way better method all around.
Anyone who works glass in a torch knows the answer to this. Whatever color or transparency of the glass in it's pure form, remains the same in the molten state. Your demonstration was not effective because no one could possibly see anything through all the glare. Glass workers use didimium glasses to negate the sodium glare when working with soft glass so they can see what they're doing. Stronger protective glasses are needed if you work borosilicate glass, as the melting temperature is higher. Whatever type of glass you work in a torch, eventually you will fry your eyeballs unless you protect them. It looks like you used borosillicate clear rod and tube so the glare was particularly bad. Glass can change color in the heat up phase, if you dunk the molten glass in various colored frits. You can also marbleize glass by combining two different colors. Red and white however will never make pink. You layer glass, not mix. The techniques to change glass is endless. You can alter the basic color of some sensitive glasses only during the cool down phase. This is contingent upon how long you keep the glass once melted, at a certain cool down temperature, high out from the flame or by manipulating the ratio of gas to oxygen in the flame itself. Reducing or oxidizing. You won't see this effect though, until you pull the glass from the flame and let it cool a bit. I don't know if you were talking down, or just didn't do your research. Do better next time. Many people are fascinated by glass.
"I definitely wouldn't go as far as saying it's a universal law, or even true most of the time." Here we are in complete agreement. In fact, your other statements in that comment are in complete agreement with mine. Did I criticise your experiment or interpretations thereof? No. Did I criticise some fool for extrapolating your experiment far beyond what can be justified? Yes.
Great channel. Just found you. I was surprised. I was thinking that since glass conducts when it gets hot that there would be a conduction band like in metals and any photon would be able to find a gap and be absorbed. I guess it is more like water with salt ions than metal.
Of course it would still be transparent... Glass (amorphous) is and quartz is too. Some absorption bands would appear, but just because of the freedom. In the end it would be amorphous like glass, but liquid, which would mean bigger radios, which would shift things up a little bit.
If photons lose 10% of their energy for every ten centimeters travelled, why can we still see through a cube of glass >10cm on all sides? Is this some weird application of Zeno's paradox?
I was going to use the line, "Hey Baby. So tell me, if this glass was as hot as you, do you think that it'd still be penetrated by visible light?" But I decided against, i thought it was a little too explicit :P
When you say you're "pretty sure" you're advancing a universal law. That's just how reality works. Because if you do not think it a universal law then you're not "pretty sure" about it. I understand the limitations of youtube's crap threading/commenting system. BTW, did you manage to spot the other system where temperature doesn't change its transparency? To give you two examples rather than one? Only it doesn't. not at extremes. LOX is blue.
I'd be interested to hear how you got from "pretty sure" to "universal law" within the space of a few sentences. It's the difference between "probably" and "definitely". For example, you've interpreted my comment incorrectly. This is DEFINITELY the case. It's also unreasonable to expect a 500 character comment to contain a litany of supporting references, especially for such a weak statement. You should hesitate more often, it may save you from misinterpreting other people.
You're pretty sure heating a substance within a phase doesn't change its transparency? Based upon one example? Well, I can think of another. That makes two. That makes it a universal law? I'd hesitate at reaching so far. It may turn out that you're right, but if so you have no basis for making that claim.
No. I refuse to defend a statement that I did not make, and in fact expressly avoided making. No amount of fury and spittle that you work up over the matter (impressive though the amounts may be) is going to change my mind. And since you've failed to hold up your end of this conversation, I think it's safe to say we're done here.
Oh comon I didn't see the video where you asked the question in my sub box... I wanted to give it a try :( I won't make that mistake again, I am doing it so I will get an E-mail when you upload a video. SO ANNOYINGGGGGG
You're seriously going to double down on your misinterpretation. You're going to stick by it in spite of being corrected. Well, you've got one chance left to impress me. Characterize how the transparency of liquid oxygen changes with temperature. Pick any temperature of your choosing.
Don't apologize! Your comments are awesomely helpful. Thanks.
Just to be clear, you are NOT responsible for my frustration.
RUclips is.
I am more than thankful for the time, effort and dedication you show towards making those videos and that is the reason I subed.
Thank you
You've become a terrific addition to RUclips science content; I'm really enjoying your videos.
By definition, glass is an amorphous or "non-crystalline" solid. This means that it is a solid that lacks to long-range modular structure that crystals exhibit. The idea that glass is a slow flowing liquid has been a widely circulated myth. This stems from the observation that most old panes of glass are thicker at their base. In reality, this varied thickness was a result of the glass production methods of the time and the glass was mounted with the thick side down in order to prevent
We actually used 2 types of glass. The first 2 clips were with fused quartz, and I believe the last one (were I put the subscribe link) was with a much softer pyrex. We didn't notice any difference in the final/initial transmitance.
We considered doing that, but there were some issues with the equipment that would have made that tricky. :) Glad you liked the experiment.
Interesting. I didn't get the right answer, but I was on the right track!
What I should have tried was thinking about the phase transition (solid->liquid) without heat, since I'm pretty sure heating a substance within a phase doesn't change it's transparency. Certainly I've never noticed a difference between water at 0C and at 100C!
I was talking to a chemist about this. So a glass is a solid at low temperatures (it has a definite shape), at high temperatures it is definitely a liquid. The difference between it and say quartz is that it isn't a crystal. I think myth busters actually did an episode on this. They can probably give a much better answer than me.
I'm a hobby level lampworker (glass blower). Apparently "sodium" is in reference to the wavelength (589 nm) and that's its brightest with borosilicate glass. Why? I don't know.. but the glasses we use all block sodium flare and without it you you don't see much of anything.. Might not see much afterwards either. Not as bad but you might think of it as watching someone weld without eye protection. When photographing someone using a torch all you get is a big orange ball. Unless through glasses.
I'm still experimenting with the format of these videos, I think I may put an aside at the start of future videos to check out the challenge vid before watching the answer. Thanks for the feedback.
I was wondering how you were going to do the experiment.
that was brilliant!!!!!
I put a link to a discussion of the transmittance of glass in the video notes. It's a bit dry, but thorough.
Nerdgasms are the best kinds of gasm :) Glad you enjoyed the video.
Don't worries, I didn't take it that way. I'm still getting a feel for timing the narrative of the videos. Any feedback is useful.
So there are two things I should probably clear up. 1)The photons don't loose energy (otherwise they would change colour) rather you loose 10% of the photons in the light. 2) I realized after posting that transmittance is reduced by 2 effects, some from reflecting off the surface of the glass, and some from dissipation in the glass. That means it probably dissipates significantly less than 10% per centimetre.
I'm almost certain the image issues we had were from the infrared black body. The person recording the signal on the paper screen didn't have filtering glasses (They were nowhere near the torch or the molten glass)
Most of the white light the camera was picking up on the screen wasn't actually visible to the naked eye, but was clearly picked up on camera.
Out of curiosity, where do you think the sodium would come from?
cont... water from pooling at the base of the glass's fixture. (And though mounting panes of glass with the thick side down was the common practice. It is not uncommon to find them mounted with the thick side up. (Presumably do to human error.)) But with modern forms of glass production (eg. Float Glass) these variances in glass width are seldom seen.
Sorry for jumping in and writing a novel on this comment.... But I hope that this explanation helps.
I definitely wouldn't go as far as saying it's a universal law, or even true most of the time. I only mean that a change of phase doesn't have to change transparency of the glass. The only thing this experiment showed was that the two types of glass I looked at stayed transparent to red and green light.
Material science is ridiculously complex and would take a heck of a lot more than a short video or comment section to cover.
I got it right but not for the right reasons lol, thanks so much for the challenge, looking forward to more.
It's a fun noodle scratcher :) Though I think you have the right way of thinking about it.
Great video... Makes me want to give my opinion next time you pose a question!
You had me at "Hey Baby"
But, I also found this..
"When an oxygen-rich flame reacts with glass containing sodium the result is a bright yellow flame. The brightness of sodium flare can make it difficult for a lamp or flame worker to see their work."
Another challenge getting put up tomorrow.
Thanks for the video, I was watching shorts and saw a glass making video and the thought came in to my head, was the molten glass still transparent and the reason it looked opaque was due to the produced black body light overwhelming the light that made it through? Or did it change to actually being opaque. I don't have the means to test it but had an idea for a test. Have a wavelength detector and shine some monochromatic light with molten glass between them. If you were still able to detect the monochromatic light then the glass was transparent. I was thinking more in terms of like an LED bulb and like a sheet metal with hole in it to limit the lights path to detector but your method of laser through a spinning rod you melt was by far more simpler and in my opinion a way better method all around.
Very interesting. Thank you.
Anyone who works glass in a torch knows the answer to this. Whatever color or transparency of the glass in it's pure form, remains the same in the molten state. Your demonstration was not effective because no one could possibly see anything through all the glare. Glass workers use didimium glasses to negate the sodium glare when working with soft glass so they can see what they're doing. Stronger protective glasses are needed if you work borosilicate glass, as the melting temperature is higher. Whatever type of glass you work in a torch, eventually you will fry your eyeballs unless you protect them. It looks like you used borosillicate clear rod and tube so the glare was particularly bad. Glass can change color in the heat up phase, if you dunk the molten glass in various colored frits. You can also marbleize glass by combining two different colors. Red and white however will never make pink. You layer glass, not mix. The techniques to change glass is endless. You can alter the basic color of some sensitive glasses only during the cool down phase. This is contingent upon how long you keep the glass once melted, at a certain cool down temperature, high out from the flame or by manipulating the ratio of gas to oxygen in the flame itself. Reducing or oxidizing. You won't see this effect though, until you pull the glass from the flame and let it cool a bit. I don't know if you were talking down, or just didn't do your research. Do better next time. Many people are fascinated by glass.
"I definitely wouldn't go as far as saying it's a universal law, or even true most of the time."
Here we are in complete agreement. In fact, your other statements in that comment are in complete agreement with mine.
Did I criticise your experiment or interpretations thereof? No.
Did I criticise some fool for extrapolating your experiment far beyond what can be justified? Yes.
Great channel. Just found you. I was surprised. I was thinking that since glass conducts when it gets hot that there would be a conduction band like in metals and any photon would be able to find a gap and be absorbed. I guess it is more like water with salt ions than metal.
This was an awkward line to deliver, considering the camera man kept cracking up whenever I tried waggling my eyebrows at the camera.
Of course it would still be transparent...
Glass (amorphous) is and quartz is too.
Some absorption bands would appear, but just because of the freedom. In the end it would be amorphous like glass, but liquid, which would mean bigger radios, which would shift things up a little bit.
Thanks, it's been a lot of fun :)
If photons lose 10% of their energy for every ten centimeters travelled, why can we still see through a cube of glass >10cm on all sides? Is this some weird application of Zeno's paradox?
The flare you see is sodium and you should have had glasses that filter that out for your eyes but apparently you didn't have that for the camera.
I was going to use the line, "Hey Baby. So tell me, if this glass was as hot as you, do you think that it'd still be penetrated by visible light?" But I decided against, i thought it was a little too explicit :P
When you say you're "pretty sure" you're advancing a universal law. That's just how reality works. Because if you do not think it a universal law then you're not "pretty sure" about it.
I understand the limitations of youtube's crap threading/commenting system.
BTW, did you manage to spot the other system where temperature doesn't change its transparency? To give you two examples rather than one? Only it doesn't. not at extremes. LOX is blue.
That's a special ability very rare among us hominidae.
I'd be interested to hear how you got from "pretty sure" to "universal law" within the space of a few sentences. It's the difference between "probably" and "definitely".
For example, you've interpreted my comment incorrectly. This is DEFINITELY the case.
It's also unreasonable to expect a 500 character comment to contain a litany of supporting references, especially for such a weak statement.
You should hesitate more often, it may save you from misinterpreting other people.
You're pretty sure heating a substance within a phase doesn't change its transparency? Based upon one example? Well, I can think of another. That makes two.
That makes it a universal law? I'd hesitate at reaching so far. It may turn out that you're right, but if so you have no basis for making that claim.
It is a hard problem, but your reasoning was pretty close. So congrats on guessing right.
Science is a lot easier to do when you have access to a 50 000$ glass lathe :P I'm not sure how I would have done it without it.
No. I refuse to defend a statement that I did not make, and in fact expressly avoided making. No amount of fury and spittle that you work up over the matter (impressive though the amounts may be) is going to change my mind.
And since you've failed to hold up your end of this conversation, I think it's safe to say we're done here.
Myles sent me here and I got a nerdgasm after the experiment (>_^) ♥ Totally subbed (^_^) ♥
Nothings wrong, they just can't see infrared light.
Isn't glass always sort of molten? I don't science much, so idk. (not proud of this)
Oh comon
I didn't see the video where you asked the question in my sub box...
I wanted to give it a try :(
I won't make that mistake again, I am doing it so I will get an E-mail when you upload a video.
SO ANNOYINGGGGGG
You're seriously going to double down on your misinterpretation. You're going to stick by it in spite of being corrected.
Well, you've got one chance left to impress me. Characterize how the transparency of liquid oxygen changes with temperature. Pick any temperature of your choosing.
OH NOES! I was wrong.
Raccoon?
What's wrong with your eyes :(