jdurg

Well, the first thing to ask is did the batteries have their polarity reversed over time, or was the polarity reversed when they first were declared "dead"? It is widely known that if you have a device which has a large number of batteries in there and one of those batteries happens to die, the flow of current out of the "live" batteries can cause the dead one to develop a reversed polarity. What I'm thinking happened is that these "dead batteries" you collected that you've discovered a reverse polarity on may have been used with multiple other batteries that were still live and this phenomenon with the polarity getting reversed occurred while that "dead" battery was still in use. You just didn't happen to know that until just now.

In all honesty, the term "disease" is used for political reasons and that's about it. If you call something a "condition", there will be no funding for research on it or potential treatments for it (pharmaceutical or not). Once something is classified as a disease, governments and people will fund research into said "disease" in an attempt to find a way to "cure" it. Whether it meets the scientific definition of a disease is a moot point. Classifying something as a "disease" just means that it has been regarded as something worthy of research and funding to develop a "cure".

It doesn't corrode the glass. It just seems to make it more brittle. So if you have it in a glass container that has a thinner than normal part to it, over a few years the bromine will make the glass more brittle and it can eventually leach through. If your glass is a standard thickness and doesn't have any thin spots in it, then it probably won't be a problem. I got mine re-ampouled and encased in an acyrlic resin since I never plan on using the bromine and want to keep it permanently encased for a long, long time.

Well, while the glass will keep the halogens in there, over time the glass does become brittle, especially in the thinner areas where it was melted. I had my bromine sealed in a glass ampoule, and for a long while there were no issues at all. About two years after it was ampouled, I started to notice that there was a very faint bromine-like odor in my cabinet. I figured the bromine was starting to slowly seep through the glass. I took the ampoule over to a friend's place and we went to re-seal the Br2 into the ampoule. When the top of the tube, where the glass was initially melted and sealed, was VERY lightly tapped, it just crumbled and fell apart. It wasn't like that when the sample was first ampouled. So over those two years, the glass did get a bit brittle. When the Br2 was re-ampouled, we also surrounded it with some acrylic resin so it's sealed in the glass tube which is sealed in the acrylic resin block. No notice of any Br2 leakage over the past few years.

Or take pure chlorine gas and push it through a solution of NaOH. Of course, it's not going to be all that pure when doing it, but you'll ge some sodium hypochlorite out of it.

I still don't agree with the "tell the students the complex model even if they can't comprehend it." When you start out by teaching students the "wrong" version, but a version of the rule they can understand, it helps them build off of that onto other concepts. In addition, you are pretty much teaching them what mankind initially knew. As they get deeper into chemistry studies, the will learn the more complex concepts and understand them better because they at least had a grasp of it before hand. While we all now know that the thought of electrons orbiting the nucleus is wrong, by teaching that to us initially it helped us understand the behavior of electrons a little bit better and gave us a method for understanding WHY they don't fall into the nucleus. (Because they are moving around at such speeds to overcome the attractive force of the nucleus). If you tried teaching kids quantum mechanics right from the get go, they would VERY quickly get INCREDIBLY frustrated and have no desire to get deeper into the field of chemistry, and thus they would lose all interest in the subject. That is far, FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR worse than teaching them something that isn't completely true just so they can at least grasp the idea and then build upon that later.

Good metaphor there! I think that explains condensation and "heat" quite well.

How about "Yerdeadium" since if enough were produced for you to physically see it with your own two eyes, the radioactivity would make you dead pretty quickly.

Then what are your reasons for picking these answers? Once we see where you're coming from, we can provide more help.

Exactly. We like to have participation in the forums and appreciate your input, we just don't want to blow things way out of proportion. The MSDS sheets will state what "COULD" happen, but they don't state the likelyhood of that occurence happening. If one was to follow all of the guidelines of the MSDS sheets to a tee, then yes, you wouldn't have any unexpected incidents ever. But the amount of money and time spent adhering to those guidelines would be quite consuming.

I think you mean missile.

Okay, you're blowing things a bit out of proportion here. Internally, CH3OH is very nasty as your liver metabolizes the methanol into formaldehyde in the same manner that it converts ethanol into acetaldehyde. However, CH3OH that you spill on your skin will not be absorbed at nearly the same rate into your bloodstream as it will if you drink it, and even then the amount that gets absorbed into your bloodstream is going to be miniscule. Not enough to damage you. When you drink a fermented beverage, you drink small amounts of methanol. The fermentation process doesn't produce only ethanol. A small amount of methanol and other alcohols are produced too. If methanol was as toxic as you make it out to be, then drinking one hard-liquor based beverage would blind you. So yes, methanol is a dangerous substance but it is not nearly as bad as you have made it out to be. We appreciate your willingness to help out others and make them aware of a danger, but your post was akin to screaming out that the building is on fire when someone had just lit a candle in the living room.

The total energy really has nothing to do with the amount of thrust you get. The rate of gaseous production does. In an explosive, the fuel and oxidizer are combined into either the same molecule (nitroglycerin) or the same mixture (black powder, though BP is not "technically" an explosive depending on which definition of explosive you look up). When your goal is to make a "bomb" to cause damage, you want a high rate of gas to be produced at a high temperature. This almost instant production of gas and energy causes the gas that is formed to heat up INCREDIBLY fast. The energy given off by a true explosive is tremendous, and the byproducts of the reaction are generally gases. Mix a lot of energy with a lot of gas, and you get a rapid expansion of the gas. The expanding gas creates the shockwave that gives the characteristic "BOOM" and the high temperature of this gas can start fires in the general area that it goes off in. What make an explosive an explosive is not just the energy it gives off. It's the energy combined with the quick release of gas that causes it to break through whatever is containing it. When you "light" an explosive, it is gone just as quickly as it took to ignite. There is no continuous release of gas. When you fire a bullet out of a gun, it's because the hammer in the gun hits the priming charge (explosive) in the bullet casing which ignites the black powder which is immediately burned up and used propelling the bullet out of the barell of the gun. You'll notice that there is no continual expulsion of gas from the gun barrell because all of the "explosive" has been used up. There's nothing left to continuously produce gas. In a fuel such as rocket fuel, the products are also in a gaseous state but the release of these products is very slow compared to an explosive. Yes, there is a LOT of energy given off, but it is at a slow, continous rate so as the constantly provide a release of gas, and hence pressure against the container. In addition, aside from the solid rocket fuels that are used, the oxidizer and the fuel in rocket fuel are two separate mixtures so the rocket fuel can not react unless the two are mixed. As a result, if you light a puddle of rocket fuel on fire, only the surface where the oxidizer and fuel are in contact with each other will react, thus slowing down the overall reaction rate. In an explosive, the reaction happens all throughout the entire mixture and not just at the surface. Therefore, the reaction speed is much greater and unable to be controlled. If you're trying to propel something forward, you want to have a continous, slow release of gasses so that the forward propulsion can continuously happen. This is how a rocket works. The fuel/oxidizer mixture slowly react, pushing gasses out from the nozzle and creating thrust in the opposite direction of the nozzle. If you used an explosive and created a weak area in the containment, the gases would expand out through that opening propelling the container forward, but almost immediately there would be no more forward thrust and gravity would take over. Use a standard rocket fuel and the reaction only happens where the fuel and oxidizer mixes, yet still creates gasses that can propel the container forward. However, the fuel/oxidizer isn't "burned up" all at once so as long as you still have the fuel/oxidizer mixture present, the container will continue to be thrusted forward and gravity won't get a chance to pull the container back down. Now what I've stated above is an INCREDIBLY simplistic explanation that I'm sure has some technical/nomenclature "errors", but again, for a simplistic explanation is is fully sound.

Did you happen to forget the amount of energy required to make the salt in the first place? It didn't just appear out of nowhere. You have to take that into account.

No need to dig up dead posts, plus, when you do a thermodynamic calculation the fact that the enthalpy is positive means that it is most likely NOT going to occur. For reactions to be spontaneous, the Gibbs Free Energy MUST be negative. Only in cases where there's a significant entropic difference will a reaction that is positive in enthalpy be spontaneous. So no. Your proposed reaction will not work. If it did, people would use HCl and NH4NO3 for making aqua regia since NH4NO3 is much easier to store than HNO3.

The thing is, the current is alternating so one portion of a second it is O(2-) ions forming, and the next it is H+ ions forming. Therefore, the reactivity of the Oxygen ions in the water is so great that it would NEVER survive long enough for you to get it into your body and have it do anything positive. In addition, it will NEVER get through your mouth, esophagus, stomach lining, etc. without reacting. EVER!!! The large number of H+ ions in your stomach will instantly turn it into water. In additon, if we're talking about free radicals, those are horrifically bad for you. Face it. It's a scam. Since sending them an e-mail, I never got a single response back from them. They know they are scamming people and stealing their money and they are proud of it.

If melting point was based purely on electronegativity, then yes, Na2O would have a higher melting point. But it's more than just that. Melting point is also a factor of ion size. In both cases, the O(2-) ion is the same size. But the Mg(2+) ion is a lot smaller than the Na+ ion. As a result, the MgO structure is more tightly packed than the Na2O structure. Sodium's ionic radius is 1.02 Angstroms while Magnesium's is 0.72 Angstroms, I believe. As a result, the ionic compound of MgO is more tightly drawn to itself than Na2O is.

Well, I can think of a few then. One who has a Phase II Diabetes drug in development, and one whose name is similar to that of a famous Valentine's Day flower. I guess with my post I kind of gave away the company I work for.

Pennies are indeed mostly zinc, but the only part of a penny that is exposed to the atmosphere is copper. The zinc just makes up the core of the penny. Also, the statistics on the Quarter are off. They are nowhere near 99.9% nickel! The composition of the quarter is a core of pure copper with an outer cladding of 75% copper and 25% nickel. Overall, it's only 8.33% nickel.

Interesting. In the times I've had to play with NaN3, hitting it with a hammer or putting an electric current through it caused it to snap. Must have been impure NaN3, or friction from the hammer head hitting that made it go. With the electricity, it could have just been heat from the current that did it. Regardless, it wasn't nearly as sensitive as lead azide, but it was sensitive enough to make me respect it.

Oh yeah. Forgot about ozone. Thanks.

Yeah, I would HIGHLY suggest you not use molten NaOH. That stuff is horrifically nasty when in its solid state, but make it a liquid and you will have some nasty stuff you're working with. Anything organic that gets in there will typically be eaten up fairly quickly (especially flesh), aluminum will almost immediately react and generate hydrogen gas, and the small vapors that will rise from it can do some nasty damage to anything in the area, including you. NaOH is one of those chemicals we all typically take for granted, but it is REALLY nasty stuff. John - I'm guessing you were single at the time you did that? Can't imagine a wife/girlfriend being very happy with that.

When you discard the horrific english used there and the overabundance of meaningless words, it boils down to "We're full of it but think you're dumber than us." The best part is when they state "One of characteristics of the method is to use alternative current that makes much difference on chemical reaction between molecules." I nearly spit my beer over my laptop screen from the laughter. AC or DC makes no differences in the chemical reaction between molecules. An electron from an AC source is exactly the same as an electron from a DC source. It's really sad that people fall for this and give up their money to idiots. These same people also think those e-mails about long lost relatives in Nigeria are true. EDIT: I just sent them the following e-mail. Hi There, My name is Justin and I just came upon your Mineral Redox Water website. I have a curious question to ask. You state many times that the free radical H atoms, and the H- ion are very reactive and will react with the free radical O atoms and O(2-) ions in my body. If you're using AC current, you are taking the electrodes and quickly making them change between positive and negative each second. (60 times a second if the frequency is at 60 Hz). When the electrode is positive, it will gather negative ions around it. When the electrode is negative, it will gather positive ions around it. Since it is switching back and forth so quickly, what is preventing the negative and positive ions from immediately neutralizing right then and there at the electrodes? In the time that passes between the switching of the charges, the ions can't move too far. Especially in neutral water. Also, with the H atoms/ions being so small, how can they get through the water and into the minerals without reacting along the way? (If the minerals are in a solid form, they will be at the bottom of the chamber and the highly reactive H ions will need to pass through all that water. If they are dissolved in the water, then they are already in the form of ions and the ions will react immediately with the hydrogen). So I'm just curious about all this. Regards, Justin Can't wait to see their response.

"Totally Harmless" depending on who you're around. I've consumed many a "live beer" and let's just say that those around me the next day didn't find it too "harmless".

Heh. "A Pharmaceutical Company in California". Either that company starts with an A or starts with a P. We may be colleagues. I can't really put any input into the chemistry career, but what I can say is that you don't have to limit yourself to chemistry with your degree. In many cases, it might be difficult to get a job in the direct field that your degree is in, but you can always use the basic concepts that you've learned in chemistry in many other fields. I have my degree in Forensic Chemistry. Getting that degree taught me to never look at anything at face value. To only accept what is there if you can logically prove how it got there. To think logically in the sense that A + B = C, but if you mix A + B and get D that you can understand why it happened. To know what will happen if you remove C from ABCD and how many things that will impact. I am now a Program Data Manager for a large (soon to be biggest) Pharmaceutical company in the world. I am in charge of the data generated for clinical studies on various compounds. While it really has nothing to do with chemistry, everything I learned in my chemistry program helps me day in and day out. I ensure that our databases are collecting the data that we need to run the trial, that the data being submitted by our investigators is logical and truthful, that we collect data in a manner that meets all FDA and various other regulatory agency standards, that our data is delivered in a timely fashion for critical analysis and generation of the ultimate Clinical Study Reports (CSR). The work I do is as far from the lab as it gets, but the experience of working in a lab has helped me numerous times. I work with individuals from all over the world, and when we actually had a budget we could use, I would travel to places all over the world to train our sites on how to fill out our Case Report Forms and what we need them to do when participating in our trials. My pay is quite good, and since I work for a Pharmaceutical Industry, the medical benefits are fantastic. Being in the Development Operations sector, I'm also "somewhat" safe when the company changes drastically what Therapeutic Areas they are researching. (If they move out of one TA, a chemist dedicated to that TA may not have the experience needed to work in other TAs. In my field, no matter what is being researched it must be developed and the way in which we collect data is the same regardless of the TA).