Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Sensei

  1. At least I tried to answer "how to make NaOH at home". Your answer was "go to shop and buy".. In post #3 I just described "home version" of Chloralkali process in easy to understand words http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloralkali_process You can read in the article that positive electrode should be made of titanium. Rethink once again what was initial quantity of salt and water. 59-60 g of NaCl and 18 g of H2O That's exactly the same number of molecules = 6.022141*10^23 of both. Each NaCl has corresponding it H2O. They are in pairs. Now, negative electrode is producing H2 which is instantly escaping our system and never comes back. There is 2x -OH and 2NaCl left. -OH joins with Na+ and we have NaOH + Cl- 2 Cl- on positive electrode are joining together and neutral gaseous Cl2 is produced (are you now inspired how important is shape of titanium positive electrode in this process to get rid of Chlorine in gaseous state?) If I see 1 Liter volume of Hydrogen produced in one container, and 1 Liter of Chlorine volume in another container, then I am pretty sure that quantity of impurities is pretty low. If some Cl will not escape it, but joins with water, equivalent it molecule of NaCl won't be able to change (there is equal number of pairs of NaCl and H2O after all). So we will have: NaCl, NaCl, HCl, HClO. That's why so important to produce gaseous Cl2 ,which I said: "But whole point of this setup is to produce Chlorine gas. We want to Cl2 bubbles to escape it as soon as they're formed on positive electrode." If both gases escaped setup at the same rate, the same volume, remain should be NaOH mostly. Impurities produced by this method are quite meaningless (especially if it's just boomstickbob's home experiment) in comparison to business production using Chloralkali process, which can even leave traces of mercury in NaOH. Quote from the nearly beginning of article: "Additionally, the chlorine and sodium hydroxide produced via the mercury-cell chloralkali process are themselves contaminated with trace amounts of mercury. The membrane and diaphragm method use no mercury, but the sodium hydroxide contains chlorine, which must be removed."
  2. Did you performed it ever in your life? I was doing it dozen of times (last time week ago). Usually with current I between 2A to 5 A. And high voltage. It is normal procedure of production of NaOH and HCl (indirectly - from gaseous Cl) No oxygen is produced this way- because it cannot be produced - because there is so little water. You can't breath after 5-10 seconds since start up with I=5 A, because of Chlorine gas. If water would be in significant amount, right, oxygen would be produced, but it would be no longer Hydrogen+Chlorine production but regular electrolysis with Hydrogen+Oxygen produced. ps. I didn't say a word about copper. It would be indeed bad idea to use it. I have tried it with bad results. Cu immediately reacts with -OH and we will have at least bluish Cu(OH)2. (Regular electrolysis with a lot of water with copper electrodes is instantly producing Cu(OH)2 . I had it plenty in containers. After week or two it all disintegrated to CuO and H2O. Easily visible because it changed color from bluish to dark) Right. But whole point of this setup is to produce Chlorine gas. We want to Cl2 bubbles to escape it as soon as they're formed on positive electrode. And then (usually) collect it in another container with fresh water, so HCl and HOCl will be produced in it. I wouldn't care much about NaClO. If gaseous Cl2 dissolved in solution (which is undesired), there will be also HCl present. Which will react with NaClO. NaClO + 2 HCl → Cl2 + H2O + NaCl
  3. Take 59-60 grams of salt NaCl, 18 grams of water, mix, plug some electrodes that don't react with neither HCl nor NaOH, and pass direct current through it, you will smell Chlorine gas (it always reminds me primary school swimming pool) on positive electrode, and there will be Hydrogen gas on negative electrode. With steady current I=1 A you will need 26 hours 45 minutes to change all above to NaOH (in theory). Really easier is to buy it (but less fun).
  4. They are conserved but at level you can't see - energy. Friction causes heating of material. Kinetic energy of one body is changed to temperature of other body. And first body stops moving, and second body has higher temperature. There was even such experiment - scientists were shooting to water with thermometer and measured change of temperature of water caused by hundred or thousands objects hitting water.
  5. Analyze units.. V, electric potential, is in Volts, or Coulombs/Farads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential If you have Q * Q in numerator, you will have Coulombs ^2 in units. [math]\frac{C^2}{F} \neq \frac{C}{F}[/math] Electric potential energy has symbol UE (not V). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential_energy See above link.
  6. Didn't Cameron do the same in Terminator 30 years ago? Software doesn't evolute over time. It doesn't write its own (better) code by itself. If it would, it would have to shut down first version after starting self made new one. Isn't a risk by itself? If new code would have some issue, overlooked by 1st version of code, starting it up, and shutting down itself, could destroy it by itself (destroy = not execute anymore). If two versions would work parallel (no shutting down of old version), wouldn't they start competing with each other.. ? Shutting down old version is often used by currently existing software during updating after downloading new version from the net. I am using it by myself. Sometimes because of errors in .NET Framework, restart of application doesn't happen. New version is downloaded right, old one is shutdown, and new version quits during restart, and application is gone from the system (it will resurrect after f.e. restart of computer because it's added to Windows registry Run key)..
  7. You didn't give probabilities. You gave skill level. I guess so 1.0 means God-like know-everything. Without actually knowing everything and having 1.0 skill, you can't even measure skills of current living people. You are oversimplifying. They don't have to do the same task at the same time. They can split job. When one is f.e. figuring out spectral lines of Hydrogen, other one can work on Helium spectral lines, and yet another on Oxygen. If all 3 would be trying to figure out spectral lines of one atom, their potential would be wasted, right. But on other hand, working on something doesn't necessarily means that there will be success. Other person can inspire, encourage, motive to work even harder. Give a new angle to look at problem when we stuck in it. Show where has been made mistake or error. Your thread sounds to me a lot like discussion about making code multi-threaded. There are tasks that are easy to split to multiple threads, multiple cpus, and there are tasks that are hard, and there are tasks that are impossible (the most likely they're serial dependent on previous calcs *). Task easily splittable (scalable), can benefit nearly linearly from adding new resources. Lost is only in merging/exchanging data. *) ( a * b ) + c - impossible to split, adding c requires waiting for completion of a * b ( a * b ) + ( c * d ) - possible to split, a*b goes to 1st unit, c*d goes to 2nd unit, then final operation by one of them.
  8. Perhaps maybe because of electromagnetic induction.. ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction Flowing electrons create magnetic field surrounding wire. If wire is entwining iron, it's becoming electromagnet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnet Direction of flow of electrons is defining where will be N and S (simplifying for you). XIX century ampermeter was simply magnet and electromagnet with attached arrow. Once we pass current through electromagnet wire, electromagnet is attracting or repelling from magnet, and arrow is showing on scale how much current we had. Scale had both positive and negative range (so could show direction of flow). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanometer
  9. Somebody neg voted in this thread? Why? I see no single reason to do so... Sorry. I didn't read posts, just initial.
  10. I just watched "Through Wormhole with Morgan Freeman 2012" and Stephon Alexander have unusual theory about neutrino role in Universe... I think so it's 3rd episode "Is The Universe Alive?". http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/people/faculty/alexander.html You can contact him to share your ideas with him. That will be more productive than writing here Later in that episode Lee Smolin is speaking. I think so he did that already? (The problem is in Kramer inability to transfer his model to real scale, not in model) Neutrino is in his model tiny amount of energy with neutral charge (same amount of positive and negative sub-particles with equal charge, so they cancels together). Am I right? That's interesting approach. If 4-quarks particle will have fractional charge, then we will have proof that +1e or -1e is not elementary charge. (As far as I know no meson or baryon have fractional charge) 4-quark particle still can have neutral charge though, which won't prove anything.. +1/3 e - 1/3 e + 1/3 e - 1/3 e = 0 or +2/3 e - 2/3e + 2/3e - 2/3e = 0 or +2/3e + 1/3e -2/3e - 1/3e = 0
  11. Each container contains integer multiply of clips of the same mass. m - mass of clip (might be fractional) x,y,z,zz - quantity of clips (must be integer) m*x=7.5 g m*y=20 g m*z=50 g m*zz=125 g so m=7.5/x=20/y=50/z=125/zz The first m fulfilling criteria is m=2.5 g, then 1.25 g, 0.625 g etc
  12. Do you really mean electron? Not photon? Newton hypothesized that light is corpuscular (particle). And it was rather logical assumption, than discovered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light
  13. Without Sun, Earth's magnetic field would looks like: With Sun, Earth's magnetic field looks like:
  14. Speakers are made of magnet and electromagnet. Electromagnet is attached to membrane that's free to move back and forth in one axis. Moving membrane causes air to move in uniform way. When electrons flow in one direction through electromagnet is repelled from magnet, and membrane moves outside. If they flow in opposite direction, electromagnet is attracting with magnet, and membrane moves to inside. If you have raw speaker, connect it to f.e. 1.5 V battery and hold, and you will see movement of membrane. Swap ends of wires, and you will see movement of membrane in opposite direction. Start connecting and disconnecting wires very fast, and you will hear sound/crackles. The faster you will do it, the more it will sound like normal sound. There is needed 20-20000 Hz for human to record it as normal sound. Magnet is pretty visible in raw speaker on the left: Using two transistors NPN (f.e. 2N3904), two electrolytic capacitors and couple resistors and variable resistors, you can build sinus (or sort of) wave generator with controlled frequency. After connecting it to speaker you will hear sound and see movement of membrane (with very low frequency). Here is circuit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivibrator Your PC speakers have probably built-in amplifier. It won't work with raw speaker without amplifier.
  15. One of roles of alchemists was to find a way to turn metal to gold. In the modern world there is more alchemists than ever before in history.. And the highest concentration of them is in CERN. Any high energy physicist will tell you how to create gold, even in couple different ways. f.e. take isotope Hg-198 and bombard it by anti-proton will give you Au-197. Very impractical way of producing gold. If ancient alchemists wouldn't be so secrete, perhaps science revolution would progress faster.
  16. Software is based on currently known laws of physics from previous experiments. You can't find this way completely new thing. If you will have printf( "%d\n", rand() % 7 ); it will always show result from 0...6 and never show results outside of the range..
  17. Only antimatter example is correct. It's too much generalization. Different kinds of fusions, fissions release different amount of energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion H-2 + H-3 -> He-4 + n0 + 17.6 MeV 17.6 MeV is just 0.376% of whole energy carried by source particles. ~3 times less than 1% Other fusions release less energy per mass. H-2 + Li-6 -> 2 He-4 + 22.4 MeV 22.4 MeV is 0.3% of whole energy.
  18. We are digging only at a few km depth. The most abundant isotopes of Carbon C-12 98.9%, C-13 1.1%, are stable and don't decay. Radioactive C-14 is trace radioisotope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_radioisotope Find how much carbon is worldwide mined. Multiply it by 200-300 years and you will have absolute maximum of carbon mined by human kind. Calculate mass of C-14 (<10^-12 of all carbon) Compare that value with mass of Earth. It's pretty meaningless small.
  19. Source- laser. Target- photoresistor, photodiode, phototransistor or solar panel. Connect target to amplifier and record result in oscilloscope preferably connected to computer through USB. It would be good that computer will be controlling laser. Length of cables must be known. Between signal starting laser and moment in which photo element will detect beam of photons there will be delay. If you will place f.e. water container between laser and photo element delay should be longer. Instead of air you can have fiber wire. It would make easier long distance measurement. ps. What a coincidence. I just returned from the electronic shop with new photoresistor..
  20. It's theory, or rather hypothesis, that it changes mass. Because we don't know what really happens at Sun core. Just have theories what happens, basing on what we have in labs. It's extrapolation, to fill gap in missing data. To confirm that this really happens we would have to know states at the beginning and at the end. For now we know just the end. Do you see differences between hypothesis, theory and law in physics? Every (most?) scientist wants to add his/her building block to better understanding nature and become famous respectful person with success in area they work in. Otherwise work would be unproductive and senseless, don't you think so? Scientists do hard work to find something unique that nobody else found before. In science there is very few dogmas (f.e. for now speed of light being a limit). Find violation of them, and you will be famous too. But first you have to become experimentalist. Theoretic, with little knowledge, won't be able to convince scientists to his/her theory and whole work will be meaningless and easily forgotten. But what with mesons, other baryons than proton and neutron, and leptons? Muon- is decaying emitting two types of neutrinos (muonic & electron). If sub-particle is building block of everything, shouldn't it be the smallest thing in the Universe? Classic analogy- how can brick be bigger than house made of bricks.. ? Do you saw Gold foil experiment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment Beam of alpha particles is emitted in direction of thin foil. When alpha particle hits gold nucleus, it's reflected (at various angles). If no nucleus is hit, alpha particle is detected behind foil.
  21. It's true only for special cases like f.e. Hydrogen and Oxygen in gas or liquid state of matter. Simply result of that the higher density, the more atoms/molecules in the same volume. I thought so you are interested in comparison of completely different substances like f.e. methane, ethane, propane, gasoline, methanol, ethanol, isopropyl. f.e. methanol has more molecules than ethanol per cm^3 but has less energy per kg and per L. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
  22. More than radius of whole Hydrogen atom? More than radius of nucleus? That doesn't make sense to me.. Some people estimate proton radius to be 0.85 fm (0.85*10^-15 m)
  23. I don't understand.. You asked me what is mine opinion about "change of mass of neutrinos". So I gave you contact to scientist that is working with neutrinos on a daily basis, to ask him what is his opinion about subject. Who has the most knowledge about heart than cardiac surgeon.. ? Rules of this forum is that OP is speculating and all others are replying with mainstream answers for speculation. I can't introduce mine own speculations in yours speculative thread, even if I would like to. If I recall correctly I never gave you any rep points. I don't debate with people to give or receive rep points, so discussion in private is not problem for me. I don't need large audience to read mine posts. Answer somebody question in mainstream forum, and I am sure somebody will appreciate it, if it will be correct and helpful.
  24. ~782333 eV is energy of antineutrino + kinetic energy of electron + kinetic energy of proton. 939565378 eV - ( 938272046 + 510999 ) = 782333 eV According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_neutron#Stability_and_beta_decay 0.782 ± .013 MeV is kinetic energy of electron so for antineutrino there is just 333 eV left! You have to realize that how much energy one particle will take with it, is not constant, it's variable. We are calculating just averages. Sometimes electron takes less, and neutrino more, sometimes reverse. Same unstable isotope decaying in cloud chamber might have different length traces. I don't know whether you know but there are neutrinoless beta decays. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_beta_decay#Neutrinoless_double_beta_decay You rather mean chamber. There is no single reason why you wouldn't have to build one by yourself. 50 usd is not much. Some make it in tea glass (not very practical though). One can be result of other to some level. Same problem is with distant galaxies - small quantity of photons coming from them = little informations about them. I will better send you in private message contact to Ephraim Fischbach. To mine taste there is too little data to have definite answers. There is too little known about fusion process inside of stars. And there is no way we will extend our knowledge without miracles, as no device is able survive travel to Sun core, to gather data and send them back to Earth. "Change mass" - we would first have to know what was initial mass (or energy) to tell that change really happened. If you measured mass once, then let it go, and measured second time, if it's the same, then you know it's pretty constant over time. Sun core has density 150 g/cm^3, that's 770% of gold on Earth. That's ~1.67 millions times density of gas Hydrogen on Earth. So maybe neutrinos are also "squashed" and as such are ejected from core and 8 minutes later appearing on Earth with much more high energy than lab neutrinos.
  25. Check what is said in preparation of CuI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper%28I%29_iodide
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.