Itoero

The Miller Urey (and many experiments that came after) proves organic molecules can spontaneously (with electricity) form.

It's not about abiogenesis.

I don't think the origin of life demands something supernatural.

What specifically can't we explain scientifically? And why argue for a supernatural explanation when science has done so well with the natural ones?

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

I let it in water for maybe an hour, I could then loosen it from the glass jar and separate the cotton balls.

None of the cotton was dissolved so a good cooling bath does prevent cotton from dissolving.

I washed and dried the cotton balls.

I just tried it and I'm pretty sure it's trinitrocellulose.

It has a very fast and big combustion.

 

I suppose there is something from the reaction H2SO4+KNO3 that forms a solid when it cools down.

That's why adding more H2SO4 is necessary I think.

I tried it again and it failed again.

The cotton balls did not dissolve but the balls feel very hard and look like they are glued together.

How is that possible?

 

This is definitely the last time I did this experiment.

It looks like I've made plastic.

Doesn't cellulose mononitrate look like this?

I added an overdose of water so if H2SO4 escapes, it's immediately diluted.

I do think the big bang is supernatural...it goes beyond our understanding and can't be explained with the known physical laws.

Yet it has nothing to do with God or pink unicorns.

Supernatural doesn't point to God. Supernatural is just supernatural.

It's basically unexplained science.

 

Before Darwin, the creating of life had no explanation so it was supernatural. That's why people invented all those gods.

Now we know about evolution so it's no longer supernatural.

 

This something that Einstein said about the subject:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

I do think that's nonsense.

A scientific mind does not need religion.

Science can't prove or disprove God.

100% proof does not exist in science.

The solubility of cellulose in sulfuric acid raises when you increase the temperature.

So the solubility lowers when you decrease the temperature.

When the nitrating solution is at 0°C, I suppose none of the cellulose will dissolve yet it still nitrates.

So my nitration failed because I didn't cool sufficiently.

 

Is this line of thought correct?

This article is about cellulose interaction with sulfuric acid.

At 65% sulfuric acid, cellulose should dissolve completely.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/428974/

So if you add more then twice as much sulfuric acid then KNO3, don't you just dissolve a part of the cellulose?

You do need more then 65% sulfuric acid to dissolve cellulose so maybe you need to add a lot more sulfuric acid to dissolve the cellulose.

H2SO4 is used to make HNO3 and to make the nitrating ions so the % sulfuric acid should be rather low after adding KNO3.

This the reaction you gave:

2H2SO4 + HNO3 => 2 HSO4(−) + NO2(+) + H3O(+)

shouldn't this reaction go like this?

H2SO4 + HNO3 => HSO4(−) + NO2(+) + H2O

 

If so, then I need +/- twice as much H2SO4 as KNO3.

Then I need 0,73 mol KNO3 which is 73 gram.

When I use HNO3, then I need 61 ml HNO3 and 80ml H2SO4.

 

So why do people always use more H2SO4?

 

When I added the first cotton, it seemed to dissolve...how is that possible?

What causes the structure of the cellulose to change so it looks like plastic?

Maybe the moles of cotton?

Cellulose does not have a fit amount of glucose molecules so you can't really know how many moles cellulose are in 5g.

 

I think H2SO4+KNO3= HNO3+HKSO4 (is K2SO4 formed when you add more KNO3?)

I need the double amount of H2SO4 compared to HNO3.

Does that mean I need about 3 times as much H2SO4 as KNO3?

Then I need 50g of KNO3 and 80ml H2SO4 just like in my experiment.

 

I did not stir the solution before I added the cotton....kinda stupid of me.

KNO3 and HNO3 are both less dense then H2SO4.

So when you add KNO3 slowly, most of the HNO3 will stay on top while the unreacted H2SO4 stays at the bottom.

Can that be the cause the cellulose seemed to dissolve and the one that didn't dissolve is of a very low quality...?

I answered Sensei.

So it's better to try and fail?
practice makes perfect

I've made guncotton many times, but its just some time ago and I always used HNO3.

 

50g KNO3 =0,495 mol

5g cotton =0,028 mol

80ml H2SO4 =1,469 mol (it's not 100% so it's less mol)

1000g H2O =55 mol

When I add cotton to H2SO4 it seems to dissolve.

So when this happens when nitrating, does it mean I should add more KNO3 or just mix the nitrating solution better?

Paramilitary police on the streets, highest non warfare security status, requests from the government for the public not to criticise the police, posting pictures of cats when deprived of civil liberties ... panic

You believe everything the media says I suppose?

And you do understand that the security status was only in the weeks after the attacks?

Everything is back to normal, except for the Syrian refugees of course.

 

I tried to make nitrocellulose.

When I added the first cotton, the cotton seemed to dissolve. Why is that?

After cooling down I noticed some hard white pieces.

The nitrocellulose also doesn't burn that fast.

Where do you got that idea from?

Belgium is not going through paroxysms of panic.

Why would we? Nothing happened.

Are you sure this is legal in your jurisdiction? If your country of posting is accurately listed you live in a regime that is undergoing severe and rapid changes to certain areas of enforcement (in this very area) even if not actual statutory change.

huh? Why do you think that?

What would happen if I mix magnetic ink with water and place it in oil?

ah ok

Then it's probably better to use vegetable oil and water.

I suppose oil is more hydrofoob then kerosene.

 

Why does the magnetic ink stay in the oil and it doesn't just mix with the water?

Is there a kind of surface tension that prevents the magnetic ink from leaving?

Thanks for reply.

Do you know something about the solubility of kerosene in ethanol?

 

Ethanol is less dense then water and kerosene is less dense then vegetable oils.

I wonder if the density has any influence to whether it stains the glass or not.

I ordered MICR toner powder and want to make a ferromagnetic fluid and keep it in a bottle.

 

-First I need to make the ferrofluid.

I mix MICR toner with vegetable oil or kerosene.

Which of the two should I use?

What's the difference?

 

-I will put the ferrofluid in water.

On YouTube I saw a video in which someone used 70% ethanol/30% water.

Doesn't the oil of the ferrofluid solve in ethanol?

 

-How can I prevent stains from the ferrofluid on the glass of the bottle?

 

-Can I use iron powder to make ferrofluid?

 

I hope someone can help me, I don't want to mess it up.

I made nitrocellulose several times, I just don't know the quantities anymore.

It's the first time I use KNO3.

 

On Youtube I saw a guy making it outside without a cooling bath and it worked.

I ordered MICR toner refill to make ferromagnetic fluid.

Can I use the MICR toner refill to make magnetic fieldlines visible like I do with Iron powder?

Can I make ferromagnetic fluid with iron powder?

The gas molecules tend to flow from cold to hot near the edges

Why do molecules do that?

Can I compare it with adverse current at the river banks of a river with a strong current?

There are phenomena which go faster than the speed of light. It's not inherently a problem unless there is a causal connection between them.

 

Take a lighthouse light, and pretend it's really bright. It revolves at 1 revolution per minute. We could imagine constructing a screen very far away from it and watch the light move across it. At some distance, the speed of the lit part will exceed c (left as an exercise to determine this distance). No violation of relativity has occurred. There is no causal connection between when each photon hit the screen.

True, but measuring or teleporting is the cause...

 

Because it depends on classical communication, which can proceed no faster than the speed of light, it cannot be used for faster-than-light transport or communication of classical bits.

What's classical about the communication? You send classical info but that doesn't make the communication to be classical.

But what makes warmer or colder molecules to move to the edges?

Temperature increases pressure. So normally speaking, warm molecules would be moved faster to the silver side of a vane,which would cause the rotation.

Why is this wrong?