BenSon

Since they are Bosons, they aren't subject to the Pauli exclusion principle - you can put as many in a given state that you want. (practical limits aside)

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

Well, now I hope that you see the gap in your reasoning in case of the solution of the bicarbonate.

 

Suppose some hydroxide is formed, according to your proposed mechanism, that hydroxide will react with other bicarbonate in solution immediately, forming carbonate:

 

HCO3(-) + OH(-) <----> H2O + CO3(2-)

 

This equilibrium is very much to the right, CO3(2-) only is a weak base.

Yes it will go both ways, as all equilibriums do ,but due to the removal of CO2 does not go that way very much.

Now another gap in your reasoning:

 

A solution of a bicarbonate is weakly acidic.

A solution of a carbonate is fairly basic.

A solution of hydroxide is very basic.

 

You expect the hydroxide to form fast from the somewhat acidic solution of bicarbonate, while it is formed much slower from the more alkaline carbonate. Think of the bicarbonate being converted to hydroxide, then alkalinity of the liquid moves through the medium situation with the carbonate and the process comes to a halt.You see this reasoning? So, making hydroxide from bicarbonate is harder than making hydroxide from carbonate.

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.

In fact, the carbonate ion is quite stable. Think of a cettle with hard water in it. Hard water contains calcium and magnesium bicarbonate in solution. When you boil the water, then the bicarbonate decomposes to water, carbon dioxide and carbonate ion. When the liquid cools down, then the solubility of the calcium/magnesium carbonate drops to a low point, such that it precipitates out of solution. This is the main problem with hard water. You don't get calcium hydroxide. If the latter would be formed, then we would not have problems with hard water, because calcium hydroxide is sufficiently soluble and does not precipitate.

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.

Also, don't forget that carbon dioxide is VERY soluble in water. Any that is formed will not be leaving as a gas. If it did, then every time you put NaHCO3 in neutral or basic water, you'd see bubbling almost immediately. In reality, the CO2 remains in the water and never leaves the system, so the equillibrium doesn't shift in any measurable way.

The water in this situation is boiling so alot of that CO2 will be liberated from solution.

Scott

I still do not agree, but let's give a turn to this discussion:

A counter question: What would you expect if you boil a solution of Na2CO3 to dryness, instead of NaHCO3? You also expect NaOH in that case or do you expect Na2CO3 as residue?

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

I strongly doubt that, actually, I do not believe this. If you heat a solution of NaHCO3, then indeed bubbles of CO2 will be driven out, until carbonate remains:

 

2HCO3(-) ---> H2O + CO2(driven off) + CO3(2-)

 

The carbonate will be in equilibrium with a very small amount of hydroxide:

 

CO3(2-) + H2O <----> HCO3(-) + OH(-)

 

So, continued boiling may indeed remove a little more CO2 than one would expect for pure carbontate to remain, but this will only be a very weak effect (carbonate is only a weak base and OH(-) is a very potent obserber of CO2).

 

If you continue heating, then all water will boil away and a dry residue of sodium carbonate remains with at most a few percents of NaOH, but I even doubt that, my bet would be just a few tenths of percents of NaOH.

 

Have you actually tried this way of making NaOH?

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

I did some research and multiple source indicate that NaHCO3 thermally decomposes to Na2CO3, not NaOH. Is the same thing happening during electrolysis also?

Indeed, you're right, it decomposes to Na2CO3. In electrolysis you'll get the same, but there the process continues and you'll end up with a solution of NaOH with still quite some Na2CO3 in it.

 

Heating of NaHCO3 will first give you H2O, CO2 and Na2CO3 at fairly low temperature (around 100 C). In order to drive off the other molecule of CO2 requires very strong heating. I'm afraid that even pointing the flame of a propane torch directly on the Na2CO3 still does not drive off the CO2, so that is not a useful way of getting NaOH.

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

BenSon, yes, I can deal with those people. There are illegal means which are still beneath me. The legal means, which I will use, will still lose me my job. As far as I am concerned, walking away is sometimes the only way to deal with it. The people who I am dealing with are not above using illegal means. One of the instigators has been part of an ongoing theft ring in this county in the U.S. for at least twenty years. His family has also instigated numerous violent incidents in this town, and he's been in on this since he was nine years old. Considering his relationship with another of the instigators, that has to make two of them even if the other one doesn't go with them on their toolshed raids. The one who doesn't go with them on their raids is a pathological liar and not worth my time to try to untangle any mess that she might make.

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.

In this case knowledge is key only to saving myself from dying or going to jail. The job is dead and its corpse is starting to stink. Time to bury it and move on. I'm perfectly comfortable with leaving that workplace with a bunch of thieves, whores, and jailbirds. It's not my job to clean it up. Not my manager, not my job, not my problem.

Good for you, why should it be your responsibilty to do anything?

Little hitlers running around on power trips is pretty much the subject of this thread now. I still say that we need to take away most of their toys because there is no chance on Earth that they will play nice. Let them have more power they will hurt us more. They continually ask for more power to fix things that become worse and worse. On the level of a job, a manager follows this pattern to try to fix things by becoming more and more threatening to the worker who he perceives as having a problem. He interferes more and more with the worker's work. He decreases the worker's productivity more and more. He threatens the worker for poor productivity, then he carries out those threats. His "power" makes him oblivious to the injury he does and uncaring. The manager can't win, so he can't stop hurting the worker. The worker can't win, and he can't do his work.

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

Benson, people at work have recently chucked me down a well, metaphorically speaking, and have thrown rocks down it. It is apparently because of my attitude that I am smarter than everyone else. Because of that attitude, I don't have an income. Even when I don't say one word about my agendas, and at work no one has a clue what they are, except to mind my own business and stay out of everyone else's, I have an "attitude." I am struggling to come up with any sort of emotional or intellectual accommodation to this situation, and I can't. It's unreal. It's something I have to deal with if I want an income, and somehow I have to deal with it even if I don't open my mouth. It's driven me to complete burnout three times in the last week. I couldn't work anymore.

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.

You're old enough some people say

To read the signs and walk away

~Scott

Thats a shame I was enjoying your point of view I have been following this thread but keeping silent (mostly).

My biggest problem is trying to solve problems that humans don't want solved and will punish me for trying to solve. If I quit trying to do that, problem solved.

Wrong, don't you even listen to what you say?

~Scott

I just had a thought. At least when it is illegal to have sex with children, it is possible to have the police officer arrested who thought he could get away with betting someone's 16 year old daughter.

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

When a kid goes ballistic in school with a gun, who should I call?

A prowler on my property?...

If there's somethin' strange in your neighborhood

Who ya gonna call....

~Scott

Rolling Stones

Just as every cop is a criminal

And all the sinners saints

As heads is tails

Just call me lucifer

’cause I’m in need of some restraint

I know its been said but i have to say it again

.....Curse you CHRIST SLAVE !!!.....

~Scott

In My Memory:

Between the time of conception and personhood, a preganant woman is just as well off as a non-pregnant one. But, when a fetus comes to personhood, it just so happens that the fetus came to personhood as a disabled person (a person cannot be abused if it doesnt exist) - you shouldnt be able to tell the difference between this and an accident.

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.

... or, another interpretation. If it is true that a woman does not have an obligation to protect the life or well-being of the fetus before personhood, then there isnt a conflict between drinking and abortion - you would say that deliberately bring an FAS baby to term is no more immoral than abortion.

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.

... or, yet another interpretation, if it matters that the fetus has been damaged before it ever became a person, then two things become obvious: personhood has nothing but red herring relevance to the rightness or wrongness of abortion, and even more there is no longer anything that distinguishes damaging the fetus by alcohol and damaging (or destroying) the fetus by abortion.

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

Long time ago, I was made to carry out an experiment on the rusting of iron.

I was given potassium hexacyanoferrate(III) as rust indicator.

Is it toxic? I touched the gel with my naked hands.

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

While at a Austrian ski resort in the Alps, I was amused by Germans singing along to songs in an bar in a rather nice (though 'rustic') hotel. One song came on called 'Alice' (I think that is the title) and the bar would sing along to one line in particular (in English) which was 'Alice? Who the f*ck is Alice?'. There was no feeling among the singers that what they were singing was in anyway rude or offensive, and even the older ladies in their 60's were singing along!

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 naturally associate thunderstorms with tornadoes, which, in turn, leaves me with a phobia of thunderstorms as well. at one point, it got so bad that i refused to leave my house for a good two or three months if not absolutely necessary.

perhaps... we'd have to go chase storms to do that, though. haha.

i'm willing to try anything; i just wasn't sure if that was the most practical way to go about it.

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