studiot

First let me warn you that you have 5 posts total in your first 24 hours. So think before you use the last one and come back tomorrow if you need to. This is not personal, just a very effective antispam measure, and you are very welcome. OK so more electronics than chemistry. Take a device with two terminals, like your battery, with one labelled positive and one labelled negative. Connect up some external circuit. By itself the external circuit does not make a complete loop, although it is called a circuit. The interesting thing is that we choose a direction of current flow (called conventional current) from positive to negative. So the only way for a complete loop or circuit is for the current to flow from negative to positive inside the battery! This is the reason why I defined the anode as the terminal where the electrons leave the device to the external circuit. It is interesting to compare this with the elctronic definition of the anode and cathode for a device such as a diode. Note the electrons flow in the opposite direction from conventional current. OK so your question is basically how does this work out inside the battery. This has been answered here several times actually, in different ways, but the answer is chemistry not positive-negative attraction and repulsion. Where you have a lot of ions in solution they will spread out so that ions of the same polarity will not congregate together but try to get as far (on average) away from each other as possible. Clearly if there are lots of negative ions in solution that will also discourage further negative ions going into solution. But where the negative ions are being discharged their concentration will be below average so negative ions from the rest of the solution will migrate towards the region of discharge due to the concentration gradient. (This is what exchemist was refering to when he said that from the solution point of view the anode is actually less negative). This will in turn reduce the concentration elsewhere, allowing more negative ions to be created at the other terminal, keeping the flow going (which is what chenbeier was referring to) Try to follow the argument through on a diagram like mine and see if that helps.

The hydroxyl ions are in solution. They are in a paste, but still in solution. So they spread out from where they are generated and their concentration is high, (as do all ions in solution), towards where they are discharged which happens to be the internal part of the anode. It would be helpful if you would tell us your interest in this as we don't know how much chemistry or electric circuit theory you know. There are some misunderstandings/mismatches between the two when you follow round a complete circuit that confuses many.

Because the chemical reaction at the terminal marked negative on the battery is the anode and that is where electrons are released to travel around the external circuit. In all electrical working the anode is the terminal where the electrons leave the device (in this case the battery) The anode reaction is Zn + 2(OH)- = ZnO + H2O + 2e- So the electrons travel from negative around the external circuit to the positive terminal.

Hello beecee. as this is your thread I suppose I should ask you what you mean by Physics and Philosophy, and why is this (science) news ?

If that is the case are talking about inertial mass or gravitational mass ?

Is there any need to shout ? I note that you have degraded my 'isolated single particle' to any old single particle. Single particles undoubtedly do exist, lots of them, as far as anything can be said to exist. That is how they can form systems of single particles. Some have them have zero rest mass. What is the kinetic energy of an isolated single particle ? What is its potential energy ? When there is nothing whatsoever around that particle in any direction all the way to infinity. Both questions are meaningless. By the way I did not say that an isolated particle does not exist, I said its energy is meaningless. I accept that English is not your first language, so try to make sure you actually understand what is said to you beofre you start shouting the odds.

I am going to start by giving you +1 for understanding that an anti particle does not have negative energy, it has the same kind of energy as a particle. Unfortunately after that good start, your understanding has failed you. exchemist (+1) has explained that is energy not a particle, but a properties of particles. But here's the thing. The energy of a single isolated particle is meaningless. Energy is a property of a system of particles (and perhaps other things as well). Here's another thing. The terms positive and negative have more than one meaning. They are often used to indicate direction. Chemists have no problem with negative energy, when used in this manner. So if a system evolves (gives off) energy (to another system), that energy is classed as negative. And if energy receives energy from another system, that energy is classed as positive. But there is no such thing as a 'particle of energy', negative or positive.

+1 for not having a ready made on-demand pat view of either Philosophy or Science, especially one set in stone. By the way, how did this thread move from Physics to Science in general ? I would add to this my observation that neither discipline is set in stone either. Hands up those who think either Philosophy or Physics was the same as it was 50 years ago?; 100 years ago? ; 200 years ago? ; 500years ago ?

Another book collector. Welcome. Interesting collection range - movles, computer books and maths books. Please tell us more it will be an interesting discussion. But I suggest you start your own thread (good practice for you).

Is this for examination purposes ? I ask because UK A level exams are coming up and I was preparing some more detail for you but there is a small but important point I would like to clear up. Van der Waals proposed his froces in 1873, before experimental confirmation of either atoms or molecules. London proposed his quantum idea in 1930 to explain the work on inttermolecular forces that had taken plece in the intervening half century. Since then modern Chemistry has gained a vast amount of new data, both the VDW and London explanations have been refined and redefined several times. So it is important to use he definitions and explanations appropriate to your syllabus if this is exam material. The UK A level currently defines VDW as a general label for intermolecular forces and London forces as a special case.

Did you say mathematicians or charlatans ? Your photo looks like a luggage tag or other label to me, which suggested the company logo thought. It is definitely not a MedicAlert tag.

Suggest you do a trademark search, perhaps start here. https://www.trademarkia.com/logos-in-two-triangles-geometric-figures-and--260513-2-page-1

I think you missed my meaning about changes and patterns. A few years ago I noticed a daily pattern and built up quite an overall gain using your principle above. But each day the small gain was on different shares and, as you say sometimes I lost, but on balance there was a small steady overall gain. This pattern worked well for several years Then one day we had an unexpected big overall drop when nearly all shares dropped and most of that gain was wiped out.

I agree there are patterns, but there are many more underlying reasons and complications that sensei and swansont have mentioned. Theirs is a very simplified analysis. The timing of sudden, and sometimes large, changes is unpredictable and often catches out 'pattern followers'.

Good points, I like the last line especially. +1 But remember also this is a resurrected thread from 2018

I think that there are plenty of applied Physicists, Engineers and Technicians that would strongly disagree with this statement. But welcome to the discussion and SF.

Agree with exchemist. Yes description in words would be great, and also numbers if you measured any, inlcuding timescale for any reactions observed. The picture might tell us if there were other (carbonaceous) materials present that would have reacted strongly and quickly with the acid, fizzing.

Thanks. I should have added ' and dissolved gasses'.

Yes I think we are still well in information gathering and hypothesizing phase. +1 Information about high temperature, high pressure geomaterials is sparse. One comment about the water is that we are (or should be) talking about seawater. This, of course, contains many minerals and is not just the plain H2O that appears in the simplified chemical reactions.

If you are going to consider this, it is true that there is a greater depth of water covering the sea bed at high tide. But the 'strength' of the Earth's gravitational pull is reduced by the direct opposition of the Moon's gravitational pull, thus reducing the weight of that water. Yes there is some transfer of energy but is it concentrated enough to cause tectonic action ? Note it is thought that the plates preceeded the Moon in the history of the Earth, though both were quite early in that history.

Thanks for the valuable comments on aspects I had not considered. That is what a discussion site is for. 🙂

Good questions to ask creationists concern children. If there was a creation, why did the creator create no children ? Why do chilren 'grow up' ? What is the difference between evolving and growing up ? Why are children in general and the children that were reported after the creation different from their parents?

~At last someone has posted a scientific thread. +1 The oceans have 'a lot of weight' , but do they ? There are big chemical and mechanical differences in the crustal materials of the ocean floors and the land masses. Oceanic crust is largely basaltic rock of greater density than 'continental' crust which includes much lighter material. OK, so the continental material is 2.5 to 3 times as 'heavy' as water would be overlying the basal platform surface. Thus the oceans apply one half to one third of the load that is applied by continental material. Secondly most of the planet volcanic activity takes place at the bottom of the oceans, since they cover so much more of the surface. The ocean water dramatically reduces or prevents altogether the amount of solid material ejected into the atmousphere during eruptions. The water also quenches the molten rock much more rapidly than the atmousphere. As to the role of water in the origin of the Earth's plates, this is not known with any degree of certainty. Several different theories have been proposed. But we do not know when or how the water originally came to be there. We now think that this happened very early in the history of Earth, less than half a billion years after its formation, and this time is being pushed back and back. Our best guess is that plates formed shortly after the original semi-molten Earth cooled at the surface sufficiently to start crusting over. Contraction cracking in this crust was then thought to have occurred as a result of that cooling.

Thanks. +1