David Jonsson wrote:

Please Google "lattice vibrations phonons" etc. The random vibrations
or motions of the atomic
constituents of an object are not altered by a mere translational
velocity of the object.

The crust is not in translational motion and I haven't said so either.
The lattice vibrations will increase on the down stroke and slow down
going upwards just like a bouncing ball.

The picture on the top right of this page shows it well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
Imagine gravity to act sideways in that picture. Vibration would be
affected.

Do you see that interesting behaviour as in any way having anything to
do with crystal *growth*?

On Jan 14, 12:35 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
David Jonsson wrote:

Please Google "lattice vibrations phonons" etc. The random vibrations
or motions of the atomic
constituents of an object are not altered by a mere translational
velocity of the object.

The crust is not in translational motion and I haven't said so either.
The lattice vibrations will increase on the down stroke and slow down
going upwards just like a bouncing ball.

The picture on the top right of this page shows it well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
Imagine gravity to act sideways in that picture. Vibration would be
affected.

Do you see that interesting behaviour as in any way having anything to
do with crystal *growth*?

Since that is another topic I suggest you raise the issue in another
group. I have ideas regarding this as well. If you want the
traditional answer I think you should turn elsewhere. I for example
don't know why they want to study crystal growth in free fall on space
stations. What limit crystal growth is the curvature of space time in
the crystal. I think this idea was first raised by some Russian. You
cannot simply pack atoms in a regular manner if spacetime is curved.
The two dimensional example is like putting squares together in a
slightly curved plane like a parabolic dish. It can be done in a large
dish with small squares but after a while a square cannot simply be
fit and the regular structure is broken. So instead of trying to grow
crystals on space stations orbiting Earth, where the curvature of
space is approximately as high as here., crystals should be grown very
far from matter or between large bodies of matter where curvature is
almost flat. Or it should be done near black holes where curvature is
very high. The curvature is not totally dominant in a crystal lattice
for how atoms or molecules align. Specifically heat gradients change
the curvature in a lattice. Metal hardening and metal fatigue are two
processes where the crystal lattice arrangement is affected. The
hardening process is where there is less tension in a crystal and/or
between crystals. It simply has a size small enough where its space is
sufficiently flat. In metal fatigue the crystals are so big that the
atoms or molecuels don't fit with each other and thus strength of the
material is affected. I investigated some time ago and found that
there are not theories for metal hardening or metal fatigue. It is an
empirical subject only. Curvature in a crystal can be different from
that of empty space. Curvature in a material is affected by heat
gradients and if the gradient is only in one dimension, like it
commonly is since crystal size is so small compared to the
gravitational body, crystal growth shouldn't be affected and curvature
is basically flat.

Now I have just answered your question. The subject should be studied
further especially since it can offer theory to exclusively empirical
sciences of big importance in society. A suitable first start is to
see if crystal size created under small heat gradients can be
explained by the curvature here on Earth. I haven't studied general
relativity so I don't know how big it is. I think a good first start
is to assume that crystals can't be bigger than the distance where the
lattice constant, the distance between atoms, is curved away. If we
assume that the inter atomic distance of say aluminium is according to
http://elements.etacude.com/Si.php
284 pm and the crystals grow to 0.1 mm, based on my experience. Then
we can deduce the curvature of space to be 284 pm / 0.1 mm ~= 3*10^-6
or a curvature radius of (0.1 mm)^2 / 300 pm = 33 m. Is this
reasonable? It seems like curvature in the metal is very much higher
than in air.

More easy is to understand the situation in negative curvature. How
big can the crystal be before the spacing between the lattices become
so big that another lattice fits between? I assume that is the crystal
size.

The more elastic the crystal is the easier it will be coerced to fit
in a crystal even if curvature acts against it.

David

David Jonsson wrote:
On Jan 14, 12:35 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
David Jonsson wrote:

Please Google "lattice vibrations phonons" etc. The random vibrations
or motions of the atomic
constituents of an object are not altered by a mere translational
velocity of the object.
The crust is not in translational motion and I haven't said so either.
The lattice vibrations will increase on the down stroke and slow down
going upwards just like a bouncing ball.
The picture on the top right of this page shows it well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
Imagine gravity to act sideways in that picture. Vibration would be
affected.
Do you see that interesting behaviour as in any way having anything to
do with crystal *growth*?
Since that is another topic I suggest you raise the issue in another
group. I have ideas regarding this as well. If you want the
traditional answer I think you should turn elsewhere. I for example
don't know why they want to study crystal growth in free fall on space
stations. What limit crystal growth is the curvature of space time in
the crystal. I think this idea was first raised by some Russian. You
cannot simply pack atoms in a regular manner if spacetime is curved.
The two dimensional example is like putting squares together in a
slightly curved plane like a parabolic dish. It can be done in a large
dish with small squares but after a while a square cannot simply be
fit and the regular structure is broken. So instead of trying to grow
crystals on space stations orbiting Earth, where the curvature of
space is approximately as high as here., crystals should be grown very
far from matter or between large bodies of matter where curvature is
almost flat. Or it should be done near black holes where curvature is
very high. The curvature is not totally dominant in a crystal lattice
for how atoms or molecules align. Specifically heat gradients change
the curvature in a lattice. Metal hardening and metal fatigue are two
processes where the crystal lattice arrangement is affected. The
hardening process is where there is less tension in a crystal and/or
between crystals. It simply has a size small enough where its space is
sufficiently flat. In metal fatigue the crystals are so big that the
atoms or molecuels don't fit with each other and thus strength of the
material is affected. I investigated some time ago and found that
there are not theories for metal hardening or metal fatigue. It is an
empirical subject only. Curvature in a crystal can be different from
that of empty space. Curvature in a material is affected by heat
gradients and if the gradient is only in one dimension, like it
commonly is since crystal size is so small compared to the
gravitational body, crystal growth shouldn't be affected and curvature
is basically flat.

Now I have just answered your question. The subject should be studied
further especially since it can offer theory to exclusively empirical
sciences of big importance in society. A suitable first start is to
see if crystal size created under small heat gradients can be
explained by the curvature here on Earth. I haven't studied general
relativity so I don't know how big it is. I think a good first start
is to assume that crystals can't be bigger than the distance where the
lattice constant, the distance between atoms, is curved away. If we
assume that the inter atomic distance of say aluminium is according to
http://elements.etacude.com/Si.php
284 pm and the crystals grow to 0.1 mm, based on my experience. Then
we can deduce the curvature of space to be 284 pm / 0.1 mm ~= 3*10^-6
or a curvature radius of (0.1 mm)^2 / 300 pm = 33 m. Is this
reasonable? It seems like curvature in the metal is very much higher
than in air.

More easy is to understand the situation in negative curvature. How
big can the crystal be before the spacing between the lattices become
so big that another lattice fits between? I assume that is the crystal
size.

The more elastic the crystal is the easier it will be coerced to fit
in a crystal even if curvature acts against it.

David

Well, ..in view of the implications of an expanding/ growing/ getting
bigger Earth it certainly does seem a relevant line of thought .
Thanks for your reply. The questions of crystal nucleation, growth,
and paragenesis are paramount.

Here is a picture how a crystal would look with curvature.http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/astronomy/gravity3d.gif
It is not perfect but the best I could find with Google images. The
atoms are illustrated with the crossings in the black grid. The violet
ball just marks the center.

There is tension and eventual shear in a deformed simple cubic crystal
like this. To deform it to this shape requires energy and weakens it's
strength. On the other hand smaller crystal size would make the
crystal less deformed and thus stronger but on the other hand more
crystals would form and increase the area of weaker binding between
crystals. There should thus be an optimal crystal size for the
strength of the entire material. Metal fatigue is a condition when the
relation is far from optimal. Hardened metals are materials where the
crystal size has become optimal. Metal fatigue contains more internal
energy than hardened materials. The process of hardening is applying
compressing force in a material undergoing thermal expansion. Negative
work is being done on the material. Metal fatigue would then be the
opposite. Either thermal expansion combined with positive pressure or
thermal retraction together with negative pressure would then cause
metal fatigue. In lack of better theories this is how I understand
those phenomena of material strength alterations and gravity or
gravity like effects on crystal formation. This could also apply to
non isotropic pressure volume work and eventually with shear forces
since they also involve volume changes.

Anyone interested in verifying this experimentally is advised to do
the following.

Take a set of wires. Heat them and cool them repeatedly. Let some of
the wires be exposed to forces maximal in the elastic domain of the
wires during cooling and other during heating. On the cooling wires
with maximum force you see that work is being done by the wires. This
energy is being taken from the binding forces between the crystals and
between the atoms.

On the heated wires with maximum force you see that work is being done
on the wires. This work or energy is being added to the binding
energies of the material.

If the heated while loaded wires become weaker after this process then
this theory is supported. These wires would then have metal fatigue.
If the cooled wile loaded wires become stronger after this process
then this theory is supported. These wired would then have been
hardened.

David

That heat gradients need a certain size to be conducting is well known
for super fluid helium.

Are you sure of that? Really sure?

On Jan 19, 5:25 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
wrote:



Here is a picture how a crystal would look with curvature.http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/astronomy/gravity3d.gif
It is not perfect but the best I could find with Google images. The
atoms are illustrated with the crossings in the black grid. The violet
ball just marks the center.

There is tension and eventual shear in a deformed simple cubic crystal
like this. To deform it to this shape requires energy and weakens it's
strength. On the other hand smaller crystal size would make the
crystal less deformed and thus stronger but on the other hand more
crystals would form and increase the area of weaker binding between
crystals. There should thus be an optimal crystal size for the
strength of the entire material. Metal fatigue is a condition when the
relation is far from optimal. Hardened metals are materials where the
crystal size has become optimal. Metal fatigue contains more internal
energy than hardened materials. The process of hardening is applying
compressing force in a material undergoing thermal expansion. Negative
work is being done on the material. Metal fatigue would then be the
opposite. Either thermal expansion combined with positive pressure or
thermal retraction together with negative pressure would then cause
metal fatigue. In lack of better theories this is how I understand
those phenomena of material strength alterations and gravity or
gravity like effects on crystal formation. This could also apply to
non isotropic pressure volume work and eventually with shear forces
since they also involve volume changes.

Anyone interested in verifying this experimentally is advised to do
the following.

Take a set of wires. Heat them and cool them repeatedly. Let some of
the wires be exposed to forces maximal in the elastic domain of the
wires during cooling and other during heating. On the cooling wires
with maximum force you see that work is being done by the wires. This
energy is being taken from the binding forces between the crystals and
between the atoms.

On the heated wires with maximum force you see that work is being done
on the wires. This work or energy is being added to the binding
energies of the material.

If the heated while loaded wires become weaker after this process then
this theory is supported. These wires would then have metal fatigue.
If the cooled wile loaded wires become stronger after this process
then this theory is supported. These wired would then have been
hardened.

David

you are mixing concepts. " a crystal is a solid body bounded by PLANE
natural s urfaces, which are the external expression of a regular
internal arrangement of constituent atoms or ions ." ( Elements of
Mineralogy by Mason & Berry ) this regular arrangement is a result
of ionic or covalent bonding . when you speak of crystals deforming
you are displacing the crystal lattice along a cleavage plane . that
is, along a plane where the regular crystalline structure is bonded
generally more weakly to another layer of that same regular
structure . to change the crystal structure ( the regular alignment of
the chemical identity of that crystal ) you must add energy that may
or may not place that chemical identity into a new crystal class. when
you speak of metals you can no longer think of a crystal lattice at
all because metals share all their electrons ( metallic bond ) the
melting point of SiO2 is between 1600 and 1700 C depending on the
crystalline form ( remember SiO2 comes in several varieties) the
boiling point is 2200 to 2600 C . to add more energy breaks the bonds
and releases the constituents altogether .