Mad For Science

Try the potholler54 YouTube channel (no, it's not mine).

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 E_1/2, 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.)?

10 hours ago, MattReardon said:

Before I get started, let me say that I am not a scientist

You're off to a great start.

3 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The photon has no mass, but it has weight, that is, the photon creates pressure on matter.

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.

2 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Therefore, even though the scale is greatly oversized, spacecrafts can fly (and they do) in the space of the Solar System. Proportions are correct, scale is wrong, calculations are relatively correct (just because of one incorrect coefficient in calculations, which directly affects to the calculated cosmic: distances, sizes and speeds).

3 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Without aether, light is a paranormal (not scientific) phenomenon.

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.

2 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The mathematical concept may be correct, but the scale of the official model of the Universe is greatly oversized, that is, space velocities, distances and sizes are greatly oversized. But this does not affect the proportions of the orbits in any way. Therefore, even though the scale is greatly oversized, spacecrafts can fly (and they do) in the space of the Solar System. Proportions are correct, scale is wrong, calculations are relatively correct (just because of one incorrect coefficient in calculations, which directly affects to the calculated cosmic: distances, sizes and speeds).

That is something that one of the many professional scientists would have noticed by now if it were true. It isn't.

3 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Atmospheric refraction (lensing) effect can casue huge distortions, when applying basic trigonometry to calculations of cosmic distances, and sizes of cosmic bodies.

There have been many measurements taken by spacecraft that are far above the Earth's atmosphere that avoid those distortions.

5 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Atmospheric refraction cannot be taken into account properly, when applying basic trigonometry to calculations of cosmic distances, and sizes of cosmic bodies.

Yes, it can. Given known atmospheric conditions, it can easily be accounted for by mathematics and adaptive optics.

20 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

I propose an experiment that is possible to implement. Not very expensive and not very complicated experiment, that can prove the existence of aether.

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.

16 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Since you are already familiar with my assumption that the Oort Cloud is the border of the Universe, where all the "stars" and "galaxies" are located

The Oort Cloud is the border of our Solar System. Stars and galaxies are much further away.

16 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The coincidence of the apparent diameters of the Sun and the Moon in the sky.

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.

16 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The coincidence of the axial periods of rotation of the Sun and the Moon (27 days).

25 days for the Sun's equator and 35 days for the poles. You are cherry picking.

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

Only Mercury and Venus have no satellites.

They are also the two planets closest to the Sun (which is just as irrelevant).

16 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Only Mercury and Venus have incommensurably large periods of rotation around their axes 58 and 243 days, respectively (Earth, Mars – 1 day; Jupiter, Saturn – 16, 17 hours; Uranus, Neptune – 9, 10 hours).

They are also the two planets closest to the Sun (which is just as irrelevant).

43 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Those 5 facts are just coincidences in official model of Solar System. But those 5 facts are obviously some kind of regularity, and they are regularities (not just coincidences) in my model of the Universe.

Your 'model' of the Universe bears no resemblance to reality.

47 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

And here are the evidences (real facts) in support and confirmation of my model of the Universe.

In what way?

On 12/28/2020 at 5:41 PM, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The rotation of the Earth and the Sun, as two commensurate objects, around a common center of mass, is difficult to describe in words and to draw schematically - therefore, I end the article with a corresponding animation, in which the size ratios are close to reality (the Earth is larger, the Sun is smaller).

 

 

Those size ratios are not even close to reality: The diameter of the Sun is 109 times the diameter of the Earth.

Please learn how to be concise.

On 10/19/2020 at 7:21 PM, molbol2000 said:

By the way, in my personal opinion, the wave nature of light is direct evidence of aether, because a wave outside the environment is an oxymoron
So, in my personal opinion, the evidence of aether is exists

Neither science nor reality cares about anyone's opinion.

On 8/7/2020 at 7:25 AM, Zetetic Zen said:

Einstein’s relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists." - N. Tesla

One of the many things Tesla was wrong about.

On 12/14/2004 at 6:16 AM, Molotov said:

Basically this guy has found a way to extract 2400 ounces to the ton of rare metals(mainly from the platinum group) out of regular soil found on his farm in Arizona.

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.

On 12/14/2004 at 6:16 AM, Molotov said:

He also claims this metal extract exhibits extremely odd properties such as acting as a superconductor at room temperate.

Based on the first claim there is not much hope that that claim would be any more credible than the first one.

5 hours ago, jasondoege said:

6 hours ago, Strange said:

 

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.

43 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

Dude just drop it. Im going to another place or another person who gives a crap.

Take your ball and go home.

The evolution of the bacterial flagellum (among the many claimed instances of irreducible complexity that has been thoroughly debunked) :

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.

 

Again!! This thread is about how a atheist reacts when ever the word God is seen. It is not about if there is a God, or about what you believe. It is about how you express what you believe. My point in this thread is that I have witnessed atheist react the same way to the word God for 10 years. Atheist react as if they have very strong faith based beliefs that shall not be challenged, and to do so, one shall receive their raft. They react the same way a religious person does, if their faith is challenged.

 

Its about mannerism of actions and speech.

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.

Exactly! But atheist have a lot to say on the subject.

However they are not the same thing.

We can't explain abiogenesis. We know about the evolution of life. But how life got there is still unsolved.

That is basically a God of the Gaps argument.

Science can't prove or disprove God.

100% proof does not exist in science.

'Proof is for lawyers, mathematicians and makers of alcohol.

There are 10 sorts of people, Those that understand Binary, and Those that don`t

[edit} just realised post #2 here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1159

 

nevermind, it`s old but good

There's a 50% chance that you are correct, a 40% chance that you are not and a 20% chance that my math is wrong.

Has anyone ever noticed that a lot of the words used in chemistry have something to do with a certain part of the anatomy?

I mean there's;

ANALyse

ASSay

ARSEnic

Benzene RING

BUTanal

Diurea

there is even a class of compounds called 'Arsoles'.

Strange huh?

I watched a national geographic special about a large comet containing a huge amount of water breaking up near Earth and its debris settling into orbit, producing a ring. The water fell to Earth as torrential rain for a few centuries, raising the sea level by several hundred kilometers. Maybe something like that.

Life, like everything, is subject to entropy (energy no longer available to do work) as organisms live their entropy tends to increase (we lose energy that is useful to sustain our life functions). However this is the reason that we require food. We get energy from food to compensate for the increase in entropy. If we stop taking in food to counteract the increase in entropy we start to deteriorate and eventually we will die. After death there is no longer a means to overcome the increase in entropy and we start to decay via chemical reactions..

I think many religions are correct of there being a creator, because we couldn't have gotten here any other way.

That is just a failure of imagination.

What evidence can you provide to convince me that what you claim is true?

 

how ever if for instance religion didn't exist there would be a lot less charity donation as there are 65% of religious people donate to charity regularly as of religious causes and 80% of Americans are religiously affiliated.

Oftentimes when religious groups raise money for charity it is mostly aimed at self promotion rather than actually helping people. A classic example was a scheme to get people to donate money for solar powered Bibles to be sent for earthquake victims in Haiti instead of actually sending them something they can actually use to help them such as food or medical supplies:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/solar-powered-bibles-for_b_434307.html?ir=Australia

Let's assume you have a computer in front of you.

　

　

Since you are posting this over the internet its a good bet we do.

Do you want to know how to destroy the planet itself or just all life on it?

What we really need is a modern day Einstein or Stephen Hawking.

Isn't Steven Hawking a modern day Steven Hawking?

Helium flash - The moment when a star begins to fuse helium. For a few brief moments the star increases its energy output 100 billion fold and produces more energy than an entire galaxy.

Thanks Janus.