Jump to content

Mad For Science

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Chemistry, Physics, Metallurgy

Recent Profile Visitors

3149 profile views

Mad For Science's Achievements


Meson (3/13)



  1. Try the potholler54 YouTube channel (no, it's not mine).
  2. I am currently doing PhD research on gold leaching, part of which utilizes cyclic voltammetry. I have voltammograms with gold, silver and platinum RDE electrodes of NaCl, NaOCl, NH4Cl, CuCl2 (With N2, O2 injection and without gas injection) at pH 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and FeCl3 (With N2, O2 injection and without gas injection) at pH 2. I have determined the positions (current and potential versus Ag/AgCl) of all the peaks and I know how to determine E1/2, ne-, etc. The only thing I am not sure about is how to determine which peaks (reduction and oxidation peaks) pair to each other and how to assign peak pairs to specific redox couples. There are some I can identify through the literature (such as O2 and H2 gas evolution peaks etc.) and I can identify the silver chloride and silver oxide peaks with the silver electrodes from observations. My question; is there a formal procedure or method for the identification of redox couples from CV peak data (possibly using Eh-pH diagrams, tables etc.)?
  3. If something has no mass then it has no weight. Photons have a rest mass of zero but have an effective mass when it is in motion. Photons carry momentum, they cause a pressure on matter due to collisions. It has nothing to do with weight. Aether was a scientific concept that just turned out to be wrong. Light is not paranormal or unscientific simply because you can't conceive of wave motion without a medium. That is something that one of the many professional scientists would have noticed by now if it were true. It isn't. There have been many measurements taken by spacecraft that are far above the Earth's atmosphere that avoid those distortions. Yes, it can. Given known atmospheric conditions, it can easily be accounted for by mathematics and adaptive optics.
  4. Unless either the laser or the detector are moving, you will not get a red shift and there is no aether to absorb anything. This has been well established by science. The Oort Cloud is the border of our Solar System. Stars and galaxies are much further away. There are literally dozens of places in the Solar System where the apparent diameters of any particular moon and the Sun are the same. We just happen to currently live in a place where those angular sizes are approximately the same at this point in time. It means nothing. 25 days for the Sun's equator and 35 days for the poles. You are cherry picking. They are also the two planets closest to the Sun (which is just as irrelevant). They are also the two planets closest to the Sun (which is just as irrelevant). Your 'model' of the Universe bears no resemblance to reality. In what way?
  5. Those size ratios are not even close to reality: The diameter of the Sun is 109 times the diameter of the Earth.
  6. As a metallurgist and chemist, and someone who has worked in the mining industry, I am going to call BS on that one: Regular soil never holds what is essentially an ore grade of 6.8%. That is well over 1000 times the ore grade of even the highest grade gold ores in the entire world, let alone PGM's. Basically that guy is full of crap. Based on the first claim there is not much hope that that claim would be any more credible than the first one.
  7. not nice, the center of a donut is in the center of it even if youre inside it. It is nice because the center of the donut is nowhere inside the donut, i.e. there is no place inside the donut where you can travel to the donut's center of mass. Take your ball and go home.
  8. The evolution of the bacterial flagellum (among the many claimed instances of irreducible complexity that has been thoroughly debunked) :
  9. If you stacked every elephant in the world on top of each other, they wouldn't like it. If you cut a hole in a net, the net will have less holes.
  10. Except that no atheist has ever burned a non-atheist at the stake for challenging their belief's (or lack thereof) or beheaded someone for not declaring their atheism. However they are not the same thing.
  11. That is basically a God of the Gaps argument. 'Proof is for lawyers, mathematicians and makers of alcohol.
  • 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.