The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Can someone tell me why Flakes(chocolate bar) don't melt and just end up burning.
I know they melt eventually if you leave them out,but I want to know why they burn if you heat them up.
WHY?! WHYYYYYY!?
I know they melt eventually if you leave them out,but I want to know why they burn if you heat them up.
WHY?! WHYYYYYY!?
Page:
enthalpy* change
But I'm a bloke.
If I am not allowed to wallow in immature innuendo and vaguely smutty remarks, what will I do?
I will be forced to talk about cars and football and drink beer from bottles and fight.
No, I demand my right to be amusingly non-threateningly cavalier on this forum.
Please, do not take that from me.
I beg you
If I am not allowed to wallow in immature innuendo and vaguely smutty remarks, what will I do?
I will be forced to talk about cars and football and drink beer from bottles and fight.
No, I demand my right to be amusingly non-threateningly cavalier on this forum.
Please, do not take that from me.
I beg you
cooldogs wrote:
> It's probably to do with the fact that the chocolate is wafer thin, so there is
> hardly any intermolecular forces holding them togather, so its melting point is
> alot lower than normal chocolate. This means that with the same amount of
> chocolate it takes to melt normal chocolate, it has allready melted and then
> evaporated!
The fact that the chocolate is wafer thin, has no bearing on what chemical structure the chocolate has - and therefore there's no implication it has weaker or fewer intermolcaular bonds. Furthermore, a lower melting point means it is more likely to melt, and has no bearing on whether it will burn or not. What you need to be looking at is the kinetic stability of the chocolate and the relative enthaly change occuring during combustion.
> It's probably to do with the fact that the chocolate is wafer thin, so there is
> hardly any intermolecular forces holding them togather, so its melting point is
> alot lower than normal chocolate. This means that with the same amount of
> chocolate it takes to melt normal chocolate, it has allready melted and then
> evaporated!
The fact that the chocolate is wafer thin, has no bearing on what chemical structure the chocolate has - and therefore there's no implication it has weaker or fewer intermolcaular bonds. Furthermore, a lower melting point means it is more likely to melt, and has no bearing on whether it will burn or not. What you need to be looking at is the kinetic stability of the chocolate and the relative enthaly change occuring during combustion.
No.
And with good reason.
I just sellotaped pens to my fingertips and made like Freddy Krueger.
They pay me for this.
And with good reason.
I just sellotaped pens to my fingertips and made like Freddy Krueger.
They pay me for this.
Goatboy wrote:
> Not only a rubbish salad-based pun but you have kids!
Shame on you.
Have you seen a better salad-based pun on the forums today?
> Not only a rubbish salad-based pun but you have kids!
Shame on you.
Have you seen a better salad-based pun on the forums today?
Dont most things burn when they get hot?
My school did... heh heh
My school did... heh heh
Buh?
Being the source of all knowledge that I am, I can offer an explanation:
Ingredients: Milk, Sugar, Cocoa Butter, Cocoa Mass, Vegetable mass, Emulsifier E442, Flavourings.
Emulsifier E442, contains Ammonium phosphatides (Phospholipids).
Which apparently stops things setting on fire. Damn.
I guess it's the sugar then.
Ingredients: Milk, Sugar, Cocoa Butter, Cocoa Mass, Vegetable mass, Emulsifier E442, Flavourings.
Emulsifier E442, contains Ammonium phosphatides (Phospholipids).
Which apparently stops things setting on fire. Damn.
I guess it's the sugar then.
I am now trapped in a cycle of testosterone fuelled sporting events.
Help me.
Help me.
Page: