John Cuthber

True, but it doesn't detract from my point. If he doesn't understand it, he cannot judge whether or not it's meaningless.

The equilibrium constant for a reaction can be calculated from the free energy change. The presense or absense of a catalyst can't change that. The catalyst affects the rate of a reaction but, because of the conservation of energy, it is constrained to affect the reaction just as much in the oposite direction. If it affects the activity of one component then it must affect the activity of some othe component in order to restore the balance (actually there are exceptions to this but they are not strictly true catlysts).

Admitting that you don't understand something while claiming it's meaningless isn't logical

"hermanntrude, do you have an example of a catalyst that speeds up reactions in an equilibrium, without changing the equilibrium constant (without moving the equilibrium)? " That's all a catalyst can ever do so any actalyst will fit the bill. For example the vanadium pentooxide used in the contact process for sulphuric acid.

Do you know the difference between a flash point and an autoignition temperature?

"(If I have read your reply right)" No, it seems you have not. Have a look at what this whole thread is about. It's about the weird world of numbers that have an infinite number of, for example, 9s after the deimal point then another number. "In fact, you can show that 1 and 0.(9) are actually just different representations of the same number. You can even see a proof of this on wiki." Nevermind wiki, I posted a proof of that earlier in this thread (did you read the thread btw?). However if you accept that "zero point nine recurring with a five on the end " has a meaning, then it falls between 0.9recurring and 1 If you don't accept that the term has a meaning (and anywhere other than this thread I would go allong with that) then the thread is meaningless anyway.

OTP Remains uncrackable. Why bother with the debate?

"You'd need more than 110 volts." I know, but feel free to answer the question anyway. It reveals that 1GC is big, but not impossibly big.

pH is badly defined in non aqueous solutions. Also the pH range of indicators is solvent dependent. It's weird to have an indicatior present in such large quantities too. How are you measuring pH?

"Watch out for acrylamide. In it's non-polymerized form it is a neurotoxin." You forgot to mention that it's difficult to avoid as it's present in lots of cooked foods.

"Please answer this question which cuts right to the heart of the matter. If 0.99999... (infinitely repeating 9's) is NOT equal to 1, what is the number that comes between them? " OK. Within the bizarre context of this thread the number 0.9recurring5 exists and meets that criterion.

"so where would we get a GigaCoulomb" Anyone care to calculate how long it takes as decent size power sation to deliver a gigacoulomb at 110V?

".9recurring is not equal to 1, it is just a tiny bit smaller than 1, but the difference is so small it is just considered to be 1." Er, no. The difference is exactly 0.0recurring1 However as the difference is also zero then it follows that 0.0recurring1 is also zero. If you don't like limits of series try this X= 0.9... Multiply both sides by 10 10X= 9.9... Subtract X (ie 0.9...) from both sides 10X-X =9 Simplify 9X=9 leaving you with X=1

Catalysts do not, and can not, change the position of an equilibrium. Show me a counter example and I will explain how to make it into a perpetual motion machine.

To a good aproximation you could count up how many atoms there are in the body and sum up the ionisation potentials. This ignores the problem that these atoms are present in molecules to begin with but that's not the major problem. Imagine that you had taken a lot of the electrons away - removing the next one would be not only taking it from it's atom, but also from the "you quite a lot + ion". I guess that you could calculate this on the basis that you are roughly speaking a conductive sphere but I think it's unlikely to help a lot. "Death" is the simple andswer to the question.

I think they are refering to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_polyacrylate or its copolymer with acrylamide the stuff soaks up water like a sponge so I guess that its just the water evaporating that provides cooling.

The best and cheapest way to get hydrogen from ammonia is to heat it and pass it over a hot catalyst. It decomposes to N2 and H2. Electrolysis won't really help here. That equation you posted simply won't work and you seem to have muddled oxidation by peroxide with electrolysis.

The pH range for an indicator is generally determined experimentally. However they are generally a range of about 1 pH unit because that changes the ratio of, say, yellow to red by a factor of ten and that's a big enough change to see clearly.

0.0recurring1 may be a bit meaningless, but it's the difference between 0.9recurring and 1 Since 0.9recurring is equal to 1, 0.0recurring1 is equal to zero.

"don't spread organic chemicals on the land" The birds do, so why not?

Glad to have been able to offer some help. Also glad to have finally found some sort of use for the stuff that I learned about determinants about 20 years ago.

Bingo! Where there's "exactly" as much of the acid form as the base form is where the colours mix and that's the endpoint. I guess by now you have worked out the maths but here's a shortcut. Log (x/x) = log(1) = zero So adding it to pKa doesn't make any difference. The pH of the equivalence point is the same as the pKa of the indicator.

Reaction orders are just what you measure. They are not under any obligation to be nice simple numbers. The molecularity of a reaction is another matter, a bimolecular reaction really must involve the reaction of two molecules.

OK, I apologise for going off topic. BTW since the OP is about yellow light from sodium could someone let me know how on-topic UV light from some other element (Ar, Hg, whatever because it's not clear why the Na would be amalgamated unless they happen to be using Hg as a filler gas) is? The point I made is that the blue colour (UV in the original) isn't due to sodium. As soon as you warm the tube and get some sodium vapour, the light turns yellow. Hardly nitpicking to say that non- Na lamps don't glow yellow. Also, since the camera renders UV as blue it's not clear that I'm seing UV- I couldn't tell if I was seeing blue or UV.

Before the endpoint the ratio is near infinite, after the endpoint it's near infinite the other way (ie near zero). Since the equation asks for the log of that ration it would be impossible to calculate it for either case. When methyl orange is red it's acid, when it's yellow its basic. How do you make orange from red and yellow?