BenSon

But don't they take up space? There must be a physical limit in how many there are in the box. Scott

Ok I've been reading up on these things and I've got a few questions that I can't find the answer too. For example the atoms in these state are bosons right? And I was taught that Bosons are force carrying particles, so can atoms in BEC state act as force carrying particles such as photons? Also I read that no matter how many photons you put in a box (say its totaly reflective) you would always be able to add more could somone please explain to me how this is possible, Thanks Scott

Ok, I still reserve the right to try it myself before I fully commit but I must admit right now its not looking good `Scott

Yes it will go both ways, as all equilibriums do ,but due to the removal of CO2 does not go that way very much. I'm not realy sure what you mean by medium situation? not familiar with that term. But that stuff you said about a solution... ect does not realy matter as the removal of CO2 will continualy produce more OH- even if bicarbonate is weekly acidic. What your saying makes sense in that carbonate ions don't usually produce OH- to any grewat degree this I can agree with but still it makes sense to me that they can. I am still undecided I think we should just throw some sodium biocarbonate in water ans boil it and settle this thing. The water in this situation is boiling so alot of that CO2 will be liberated from solution. Scott

Interesting question, I would say that it still will occur but only slower probably quite slower. This is because the carbonate ion will has to act as a base twice for the reaction to occur example CO3(2-) + 2H2O <-> HCO3- + OH- + H2O <-> H2CO3 + 2OH- The bolded carbonic acid wil then decompose as such: H2CO3 => H2O + CO2 Now if you didn't let the CO2 escape your solution would just reach equilbrium and not too much NaOH would be formed, However by removing the CO2 the equilbrium is constantly shirted to the right and favours the production of more OH-, Now the only reason this will take longer then the NaHCo3 is because the CO3(2-) must react as a base twice before the CO2 can begin to be removed. When using the Bicarbonate it must only act as an base once (From the italic step in the eqn)therefore the reaction will preceed faster. ~Scott

Your acid base reaction is incorrect. You say. 2HCO3(-) ---> H2O + CO2(driven off) + CO3(2-) Here the HCO3- is acting as an acid this is not what occurs it acts as a base in this reaction (it is amphiprotic) HCO3- + H2O -> H2CO3 + OH- The carbonic acid quickly decomposes yeilding CO2 and H2O H2CO3 -> H2O + CO2 The OH- formed in the first reaction will react with the Na+ spectator ions and precipitate out as NaOH as the solution is left to evaporate. This will produce much more then a 'few tenths of a percent'. ~Scott

Yeah thats true for when it is by itself but in aqueous solution it behaves differently and you will get NaOH by heating. I'm sorry why would you do that? You need to heat it in solution not dry, Why do you think the hydrogen would come from if you were just blasting sodium carbonate with heat? Also the product will be very similar in purity to the electrolized one. ~Scott

Hey I'm sure if you ground me up into their food they'd be more then happy chow down. ~Scott

I figure those animals would eat me if they had the chance so why not eat them? ~Scott

If your trying to make NaOH out of NaHCO3 then why even electrolyse it? Just heat it in solution to decompose it to sodium hydroxide and CO2. Sure your product wont be that pure but it will be in the same area of quality as your relectrolysed version. ~Scott

Pathological liars have got to rate number one in anoying list of people. How hard is it for you to find another job? Sounds like a small town so that could be hard. I suppose living in the city does have a few advantages...very few. Good for you, why should it be your responsibilty to do anything? Oh trust me I know exactly where your coming from, but tell me where are you going to find anywhere that is drasticaly different? I mean you will probly find a job with a less degenerate group and that will make a big difference to the comfort of your job....But the core problem will still be there, I hope you can find a different place but I dont like your odds sorry to sound pessimistic but i think its true. ~Scott

That sucks but lets not turn this thread into a pity party, Your not the only one who has to deal with little hitlers running around on power trips. Your pretty a prety keyed in guy I think you can deal with these people, after all knowledge is the key to success. ~Scott

Thats a shame I was enjoying your point of view I have been following this thread but keeping silent (mostly). Wrong, don't you even listen to what you say? ~Scott

I just read this sentence like five times and I still don't get it... Oh and by the way Thomas I was not asking a question before..think Ghoast busters ~Scott

If there's somethin' strange in your neighborhood Who ya gonna call.... ~Scott

Rolling Stones

I know its been said but i have to say it again .....Curse you CHRIST SLAVE !!!..... ~Scott

In My Memory: I highlighted a sentence there because i'm not realy sure by what you mean well off? Accident? what someone accidently pours bourbon down their throstwhile pregnant? I think you need to clarify this point for me. No by bringing the FAS baby to term you have disabled a person but if you abort before a featus before personhood then you have not harmed a person. It is not a red herring i assure you. It has total relevance to the moral correctness of abortiong. What i highlighted there, that is true while the it is still a fetus but they both become equally immoral once personhood has been achieved. What you seem to have a problem is with the idea of the time line. Lets say if bash someone up and put them in a coma, then three months later is the original fight I got in still responsible for the mans death? I mean surely you can't be moraly obligated after the fact, right? Wrong.... ~Scott

Alright then whats your favourite movie villan? I'd have to go with "Bill the Butcher" from Gangs of New York But the T-1000 is a close second. So what is it for everyone else?.... ~Scott

I can't see why you would need to wear a mask when using potassium ferricyante. ~Scott

Gel? I've used this stuff before and I'm almost certain it was from a dropper bottle and had a viscosity of water not gel. I think you may have mixed it with Agar gell or something. Even so They let us use it in high school and didn't give us any specific warning so yes it is toxic but I dont think you'll have any problems after touching the gell. As a matter of fact i can remeber getting this stuff on my hands too and I'm fine. ~Scott

Yeah I know that song if you want to download it its by Dr Hook. ~Scott

GORP...G-O-R-P...huh *Googles it *....getting it. Good old raisens and peanuts? Over here we call that scroggin haven't had it for a while though...damn now ya got me cravin scrogin! ~Scott

I'm a little confused from your first post it sounded like there were lots of storms for three or so months, so why would you go chasing storms? Or was it that you were afraid of impending storms? Either way don't go chasing storms let them come to you and when they come just take it in steps. First just sit by the window, then maybe sit in a car outside (unless your clostrphobic as well) then finally just stand out in the rain. You can probably think of better steps that suit you and your environment but you get the idea. ~Scott

Me and a few friends were in a lift once the doors didn't open so we tried the roof ala die hard but that didn't work so we just pried the doors open a walked out. No fatalities there ~Scott