Is Hell exothermic(gives off heat) or endothermic(absorbs heat)? Support your proof with Boyle's law.?
482502
Must be endothermic.\nA picture's worth a thousand words...
462388
A reaction which gives out heat is known as 'exothermic'.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exothermic\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exothermic_reaction\n\nA reaction which seems to absorb heat is known as 'Endothermic'\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endothermic\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endothermic_reaction
763107
Reactions can be classified as either exothermic or endothermic.  Exothermic reactions release energy, and cause the surroundings to increase in temperature.  Endothermic reactions absorb energy, and cause the temperature of the surroundings to decrease.
236401
Dr. Schambaugh, of the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997. Dr. Schambaugh is known for asking questions such as, "why do airplanes fly?" on his final exams. His one and only final exam question in May 1997 for his Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer II class was: "Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof."\n\nMost of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:\n\n"First, We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave. \n\nTherefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.\n\nNow, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Two options exist:\n\nIf hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose. \nIf hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over. \nSo which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year, "that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you" and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true...Thus, hell is exothermic."\n\nThe student, Tim Graham, got the only A.
794929
Fire is an exothermic reaction because it releases energy.\nIf the temperature increases, it's because the heat is getting out of the molecule and therefore the reaction releases energy: which means it is exothermic.
662425
Heat packs work by utilising exothermic reactions & cold packs work by using endothermic reactions. Meaning that once you start off the reaction, exothermic reactions lose energy & give it off as heat & endothermic reactions require energy & use heat from the surroundings.
243096
theace0804:  (i) the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system will tend to a maximum; (ii) what has non-linear dynamics got to do with anything here?\n\ncurious_chemical: the 2nd law implies that the disorder of a closed system tends to a maximum, not the other way round.  You need to start understanding about closed thermodynamical systems or none of it's going to make any sense.  Ice may be more ordered than water, but during crystallisation heat was radiated into the environment and this becomes more disordered.\n\nNot relevant to the discussion here, but a fantastic mind-mangling thought experiment nonetheless, is Maxwell's Demon.  Feynman gives a nice account of it in his Lectures on Physics (IIRC).\n\nEdit:\nWe do live in a very real closed system, called the universe.  But on a more practical / local level, your thermodynamic arguments regarding order need to be referenced against an approximation of a closed system.  Your arguments regarding ice cubes forming are just bung.  You're making the same mistake as thousands of perpetual motion machine designers, and as a result your arguments are invalid.\n\nAnother Edit: So let me get this straight.  At the big bang, an infinitely large space-time was instantly created for the rest of perpetuity, and this space-time is fixed and absolute?  That's abit 19th Century don't you think?  Also,  if the edge of the universe is expanding outwards at the speed of light, then there exists a causation boundary as the interior cannot causally affect the exterior.  So ... the universe is a closed thermodynamic system.\n\nYour grasp of cosmology is pitiful but your grasp of thermodynamics is even worse.  What you say is in direct conflict with the 1st and 2nd laws, two fairly simple laws.\n\nI don' care if it isn't your "idea to make thermodynamics an issue in evolution".  You made a horribly incorrect remark about thermodynamics.  If your physics is so way off, why should your biology be any better?\n\nYou want to argue biology?  Okay, let's start with "Evolution has always been a case-by-case event".  Wrong.  Evolution is about trends not events.  Our "Our ape ancestors" is wrong; apes and humans have a common ancestor, but we most certainly don't have an "ape ancestor".  How about "Evolution [...] guarantees [...] adaptation."?  Adaptation is never guaranteed, as witnessed by the continual extinction of species.  One could probably argue that becoming more adaptable is an "arrow of progress" for the species concnered.  I know you are trying to argue against popular misconceptions of darwinian thought here, but you're doing it really badly.\n\nAlthough it is assumed by most that the same mechanisms are responsible for both macro- and micro-evolution (gene mixing and mutation), the way they are studied scientifically differ.  As a result, it is specious at best and unscientific at worst to claim that "micro is macro" in such a loud voice.  You also fail to show how the same mechanism does result in two very different phenomenom, that genes between species usually diverge and genes within species usually combine, making it very easy for creationists to pick holes in your arguments.\n\nIn short, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about and are thereby doing scientists a large disservice.
1117740
since the heat evolced is dissipated in 100 ml in the first case (by 2 g of NaOH) and in 200 ml of water in the second case (by 4 g of NaOH) the net change in the temperature of water remains same. hence 'a' is the correct answer\n answer : 'a'
844939
Exothermic means giving off heat.  Endothermic means absorbing heat.
945103
No as far as I know All Cumbustion reactions are exothermic
148999
Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. \nOr if systems A and C are in equilibrium and systems B and C are in equilibrium, then A and B are also in equilibrium.\n\nFirst Law: The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added to the system by heating, minus the amount lost in the form of work done by the system on its surroundings. \nBasically, the first law is just a statment of energy conservation.\n\nThe Second Law combines two statements. \nThe Kelvin-Planck statement says "It is impossible to construct a device that will operate in a cycle and produce no effect other than the raising of a weight and the exchange of heat with a single reservoir."\nThe Clausius statement says "It is impssible to construct a device that operates in a cycle and produces no effect other than the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body."\nThese statements combine to say that it is impossible to have heat transfer without losses. It is impossible to move heat, by a cyclical process, from something at lower temperature to something at higher temperature unless work is added to the system.\nEntropy is defined as the "capacity for change" of a system. The second law says that in any process the change in entropy is always greater than zero.\n\nThird Law:  As a system approaches the temperature of absolute zero all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value or zero. But according to the second law, entropy must always be greater than zero, SO temperature can never be at absolute zero.
439139
the abscense (sp?) or presence of heat
354239
If you are talking about heat energy then it's called an exothermic reaction.\n\nEndothermic reactions are the ones that absorb heat (i.e. they seem to cool things)
196178
It is exothermic when the rxn. Heat is negative\nConsider Thermite\n\n2Al(s) + Fe2(O3)(s) –> Al2(O3)(s) + 2Fe(l) ∆Hºrxn=-847.6kJ
174163
thermodynamics?  heat transfer?  physics?
432865
The answer goes back to what temperature measures.  Heat is actually the motion (really kinetic energy) of atoms (since we're talking about an element).  Lower heat (and lower temperature) mean less motion.\n\n-273 C (or 0 degrees Kelvin) is known as "absolute zero".  It is the temperature at which that heat motion stops and kinetic energy goes to zero.  Since an atom cannot have negative motion or negative mass, its kinetic also cannot be zero and therefor its temperature cannot be less than absolute zero.
984549
This version of Hell is non-existent.  Hell is an eternity in the absence of God.  Fire and brimstone is a man made myth.