Talk:Melting

Touch?

Sylar didn't have to touch it to affect it. His hand was hovering over it. Anomy 22:32, 12 February 2007 (EST)

• I thought he actually touched it. We'll get a few more opinions and modify the page if needed. --Ted C 22:34, 12 February 2007 (EST)
  • He was definitely hovering over it.--Hardvice (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2007 (EST)
  • He was hovering from my perspective, too. (Admin 01:19, 13 February 2007 (EST))
• Okay... I might of missed it. I'm not sure. Anyone know where I can get a torrent of it? Anomy
• I also thought he did not quite touch it. He did get pretty close. I wouldn't so flatly assert that the power only works when touching something. I would say something more like, "It is unknown what the range of this power is, but it appears to be something less than one foot."--E rowe 22:51, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Name

So it's "liquefaction" now? I think "liquification" is much better. More accessible, and just as descriptive. I vote to change it back. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2007 (EST)

• Agreed. Liquefaction, while technically just as correct, sounds antiquated and looks...I don't know, wrong? --ZyberGoat 23:54, 12 February 2007 (EST)
  • I'm not super-pleased with either, to be honest, but until we know more about how it works, I guess either is fine. "Liquefaction" is technically the correct word, since "liquification" is a relative newcomer mostly limited to industrial uses. Bleh. I just can't make myself care. I'm distracted by the three new Star Trek references and the lack of Tawny.--Hardvice (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2007 (EST)
    • Man, you really like Tawny, don't you! I don't think we're going to see too much more of the power, but yeah, let's wait to change it. (I still hate it, for the record). — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2007 (EST)
      • I thought for sure I was going to get here tonight and find an article called "molecular destabilization". --Fcphantom 00:55, 13 February 2007 (EST)
        • See, that's where I was leaning!--Hardvice (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2007 (EST)
          • So was I. Based on what we saw it looked like he was breaking down the molecular bonds and the object was essentially falling apart at the molecular level. Though I like how liquification is vague enough where we're not speculating on the exact mechanism. Let's go, Mohinder, it's time to get to work making files for these powers (and showing them to us!) (Admin 01:22, 13 February 2007 (EST))
            • Oh. I was thinking of, um, "melting". :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2007 (EST)
            • My biggest point of contention with calling it "liquefaction" is that the objects don't appear to remain liquid. They melt, but then they seem like they're just set in their new shape. I think a name that focuses on the melting rather than the change in state would be more appropriate, since the change in state is temporary and only occurs during the use of the power.--Hardvice (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2007 (EST)
              • To me it looked like they remained a liquid even afterwards. All the spots all over the place looked like pools of liquid that had spread out thin, but I'd have to take another look at them. (Admin 02:02, 13 February 2007 (EST))
              • You can see a gap (and even shadows) under some of them, though, and a lot have rounded edges:
                • When I think of liquefaction, I think of soil liquefaction, but that may just be because I live in Utah where if there was an earthquake most of the cites would be gone do to it. -Level 03:37, 13 February 2007 (EST)

The phrase that properly describes what Zane could do is induced amorphousness and I'll tell you why. Molecular destablization insinuates a breakdown of complex molecules into their most primitive states. That'd make water turn into hydrogen and oxygen. The end result would look nothing like what was depicted. It'd also cause a greater instability of combined molecular processes, often leading to explosions as such products broke down at room temperature. Melting would require a heat source, or the resulted objects would show signs of being heated, and some of the things heated cannot do so at room temperature. A cellphone wouldn't just turn into an amorphous mass that was the same color. Metal components inside would reveal different colorization. If you look at the geology of igneous rocks as compared to metamorphic you'll see what I mean. Zane couldn't have been melting things, as there was no sign of heat. He simply took any item and turned it into a gelatinous substance which had no shape or form and would eventually return to a solid at room temperature. This isn't destablization so much as removing the form and shape of a given object. I'd also prefer just calling it "puddelization" but would probably be over-ruled. -- ZachsMind 19:34, 14 February 2007 (EST)

the Tea!

something I just realized: When confronted with Mohinder's DNA test, he looks towards the kitchen and a split-second later the tea starts boiling. Since there was no fire on the stove where the teapot was on, it showed that Sylar made it happen to get out of a tight spot.

Now, which power did he use for this? His telekensis wouldn't boil the tea for him, but I'm thinking that maybe he used his new power to change the tea from liquid to gas, and that its not limited to liquefaction. But the tea could have been out of range, as he needed to put his hand nearby the toaster to melt it, or he was just doing that for showing mohinder. Or maybe he comehow combined telekinesis with his new power to evaporate the tea from a distance?--Piemanmoo 03:20, 13 February 2007 (EST)

• I was waiting to see if anyone brought this up. I think the stove was indeed on, but right before it started whistling Sylar looked at the kitchen and there was this crackling sound. I cant tell if it was Mohinder opening his case or not, but I didnt see any other movement at the time that would explain the noise. I was wondering if he used a power to cause it to boil... perhaps even his newfound one if it works that way. Plus the whistling seemed to begin stopping a split second before he touched the dial. For now I'm assuming it wasn't significant, but if we find out he has a power that can be used to accomplish this it will be interesting. (Admin 03:28, 13 February 2007 (EST))
  • I think for now it's enough to say that he caused the tea to boil, but we shouldn't attribute it to a power. It wasn't 100% crystal clear that Sylar caused the tea to boil, but I think it's clear enough that we can at least say it was of his doing. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2007 (EST)
    • I don't think we can say that, it's speculation. The water could just have easily boiled on its own. The timing may have just been a decision on what would present the scene in the best way. (Admin 20:37, 14 February 2007 (EST))
      • Right, let me clarify. I don't think we should say anything about Sylar boiling the water in the article space, but among us fans in the discussion pages, I'd say he boiled the water. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
    • I would wanna see the original script first to see if that was intended. I just took it to be a production issue. Maybe they couldn't have an open flame on set that day. If they did intend to telegraph it, the direction was poor in that regard. I wouldn't say the teapot is a clue. -- ZachsMind 19:56, 14 February 2007 (EST)
      • I agree it wasn't very clear. But something tells me they don't have too many restrictions about open flames on the set. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2007 (EST)