studiot

This is not a question Nor is it a complete statement. So first you need to get is a full and accurate statement of the question and the values of the concentrations concerned.

Different parts of the body operate at different pH values. Some also operate a variable pH values for instance there are literally thousands of catalysed body processes many of which are pH sensitive. So the first question is What do you mean by the body pH ? The body processes alkaline foods in the stomach with stomach acids and further in in the digestive system it processes alkaline foods. This I understand is the basis of the 'Hay Diet' The little experience of this I have seen in others, is that dieting works by reducing calorie intake eg substituting cabbage for potatoes, rather than any pH control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay_diet

A solution is a mixture of two or more substances. Just to consider two, A and B - alcohol and water or salt and water. The mixture contains a certain % of A and (100 - %A) of B Adding (pure) A or B to the mixture will increase the concentration of A or B, decreasing or diluting the concentration of the other. In other words diluting is the opposite of concentrating. I know in common parlance we often use diluting to mean to add water. This is not untrue just only part of the full (scientific) story.

Do try to do the short question I asked at the end about common salt. It is meant to help develop your understanding.

Science in general does not do 'proofs' - That is for Mathematicians and Lawyers, although their definitions of the word are somewhat different. Science does hypotheses and deductions, which can tested against observations. But it should always be open to modification following further observations which show something different.

It doesn't change anything, it is not a proof. It is a derivation to show where it comes from. It also shows that you are correct a little bit of information is lost in the derivation process and it is a matter of convention which way up we define the fraction. This is an arbitrary choice that is internationally adopted and must be simple remembered. I think I made the comment that remembering which way up trips many students up so stressed this point. The convention adopted does has the advantage that these constants are very small (much less than 1). So this makes the pH and pX equations fit neatly into a convenient range of numbers. When you start to introduce other substances to the pure water this changes the pH and other constants become involved. I have starred the comment in the attachment below. So it becomes even more important to get the fractions the right way up. Here is a very simple calculation for the pH of 0.03M HCl in pure water. Here you also need to know that HCl is a 'strong acid' This means that it is totally dissociated in water. So the concentration from the hydrogen chloride of H+ ions = concentraction of Cl- ions = 3 x 10-2M We know that the concentration of H+ ions from the water is 1 x 10-7M So the total concentration of H+ ions is (0.03 + 0.0000001)M = .0300001M So we ignore the 0.0000001M from the water. So the log10 of 0.03 = log (3) + log (10-2) = 0.48 + (-2.0) = -1.52 So the pH of 0.03 HCL is -(-1.52) = +1.52 This is the simplest calculation and shows what happens when either a source/sink of H+ or OH- ions is added. In this case the OH- concentraction is unaffected since Cl- ions are added. Note that this solution is once again electrically neutral (contains the same number of + and - charges) and at chemical equilibrium. So if you added 36.5 x.03 = 1.1 grammes of HCl to every litre of pure water the pH would be 1.52 So as the simplest possible exercise can you predict what would happen to the pH of pure water if you added 5.84 grammes of sodium chloride (NaCl or common salt) to pure water ? Then the solution would not be in chemical equilibrium and this means that the concentrations would be changing over time.

Actually I have come across something connected to agebraic geometry and group theory. I have just been trying to remember it. But not to vectors. You require a whole lot of extra mathematical structure for vectors. I certainly think that is the wrong tree to bark up. Look at it like this 15 = 5 x 3 ie it factorises into 5 and 3. But 15, 5 and 3 are all numbers (integers to boot). That is they are all the same kind of (mathematical) object from the same set. This is a consequence of and consistent with the axiom of multiplication that for every a, b in the set a x b = c is also in the set. However this is not generally true for vectors as it would require the product of two vectors to be a vector in the same set. In you case you have talked of the vectors ' 5 and 17 in the plane so the product (whatever it is) must also be a vector in the same plane, which the vector cross product does not give you. Neither does the vector dot product.

Some of them are indeed oversimplifications. They are not always valid and do not necessarily lead to a conservation law. However since you refuse to answer my question here are the words of your guru on the subject I asked you about. So have you ever met the half-side of a cube ? Of course one half-side times another half-side (of a cube) gives you the area of a quarter side Whereas A whole side times a whole side gives the area of a whole side. Much more pleasing, yes ? Is there something wrong with discussing radii and diameters ?

Sorry I wasn't completely clear. The thing is that 'Millikan's Experiment' was not one single experiment at all. It was a determined effort by Millikan to measure several important properties of 'the electron' over several experiments during the years from 1909 to 1913. The results and conclusions of this work were first published Phil. Mag., 34, p1, 1917 and later in a series of books which started out with the title The Electron and was revised a couple of times to The electron: its isolation and measurement and the determination of some of its properties. (1919) and later editions Electrons (+ and -), Protons, Photons, Neutrons, Mesotrons and Cosmic Rays (1936) As a result of this work and also work on the photoelectric effect Millikan was awarded the 1923 Nobel prize. The result of this ongoing work over an extended time period, during which other people also added discoveries has resulted in variations in modern accounts in more modern texts. However the importance of this work is that it enabled the drawing together of several branches of Physics and Chemistry towards the more coherent whole we have today. Before Millikan, Faraday had discovered the laws of electrolysis and Avogadro had presented his hypothesis, both in the 1830s. Then, however the molecule was not at all established, Dalton's atoms were still on pretty shaky ground and ions and ionisation were yet to come. Between then and the late 1800s the particulate nature of matter became more and more established, but electricity was seen as quite a different subject. The idea that the particles of matter were held together by electric forces was yet to arrive. Electricity was known to come in two polarities, positive and negative, but details were not known. Then in 1897 Thomson discoverd 'particles' of electricity. He had discovered the electron. Furthermore he measured the ratio of the charge to mass, e/m for this particle. Then in 1909 Perrin came up with a good value for the Avogadro constant or number. That is the number of particles in a mole. It was seen that this tied in with Faraday's work since 96500 coulombs were required to deposit 1 mole of a monovalent element. Since the proposition was that 1 mole contained a large (Avogadro's) number if identical particles it followed that an identical charge must be supplied to deposit each one and that these might be tied in with Thomson's electrons. Thomson and independently Wilson were experimenting with the production of ions in gases and measuring their charge, both positive and negative. (This part is not normally taught in chool Physics these days) but it was their methods that Millikan drew upon and extended so that: It was at this point that Millikan entered with his series of experiments that were able to determine not only the values of both the mass and charge on the electron but that the charge was equal to the 96500 coulombs divided by Avogadro's number and that it was negative. So electrons were particles that were carriers of a fixed amount of negative charge that also possessed a small amount of mass compared to any atom of any element. The way was now open for Physicists to develop atomic models and Chemists to develop electron exchange models of ions and valency (chemical bonding). Both of which developed rapidly in the early 1900s. In his actual experiments Millikan changed Wilson's 'condenstaion of water' method to a fine spray of oil. This fine spray did not evaporate like water and could be controlled and came ready with a small charge due to friction in the atomiser nozzle. Since this was a small charge and many droplets were not charged at all, in later experiments he followed Wilson in irradiating the air in the chamber with X rays. This first ionised some of the air and then the air particles transferred this to the droplets by collision. A swansont notes, he was able to control the potential on his plates so the he could measure for both positive and negatively charged droplets as he did not initially know which would occur. Today we sometimes use alpha rays (positive) insted of X rays. These steal electrons from the gas, creating positive gas ions, which in turn regain electrons from the oil droplets, creating positive oil droplets. A rays, being neutral will separate electrons from the gas particles, creating posotv gas ions and free electrons, some of which attach to the oil droplets forming negative ions. So Millikan's original equation was If a droplet aquires a charge q, then the resultant force on the droplet will be mg ± Eq depending upon the sign of the charge q. (E is the strength of the electric field between the plates) I assume you have an idea of the method but I can provide more detail if you like.

Instead of being rude and condescending about our abilities why not just post the requested information and see if we understand it ? I note you have ignored my comment about diameters v radii. Using diameters instead of radii is equivalent to asking "what is the diameter of curvature in differential geomery ?"

It's a very good and perceptive question. +1 It should be noted that the original experiment as conducted by Millikan was very different from the simplified one studied in schools and actually carried out in some of them. In particular neither Millikan nor anybody else originally knew what the charge was. The droplets from the atomiser were ionized by means of X rays. Since then it has been discovered that friction within the atomiser is sufficient to ionise the droplets and that they then carry a negative charge. Also it was not originally known that there was a unit charge, e. This actually came out in the original experiment. Millikan found that charges by balancing gravitational, frictional (viscous) and electrostatic forces on specific drops. He discovered that the charge was negative and could only be changed in integer multiples of a base unit of charge, e and the change could not be made smaller than this.

This leads to put y = 2 then x2 -2x +1 =0 (x-1) (x-1) = 0 x =1.

He does indeed as in the attached, but I'm pushed to find a tau in either document. If Pi was good enough for good old Albert, why is it not good enough for you ? In respect of diameter v radius, There are good practical reasons for retaining both measurements. In respect of your other commitments, you have reached your 5 posts in your first-24-hours anti-spam limit. So I suggest you use that time to consider your reply and also think very carefully about the SF rules.

For the nitrophenols phenols look here. https://www.vedantu.com/question-answer/the-correct-order-of-decreasing-acidity-of-class-12-chemistry-cbse-5f4cb04546779f7310735ca5

Yes you are right, my mistake, 2πR = τR =2πR = τD/2 = πD Why is this the most important thing to start your thesis with ?

Yes I'm back and my simple question remains unanswered. Why is 2πR different from τD ?

Fair enough. Now let us see this equation and please explain why there is any essential difference since the substitution of the diameter for twice the radius in calculations makes no essential difference.

First are you sure you have the correct order of acidities ? These are similar questions to the ones you asked last July but you are correct there is an additional effect with the possibility of H bonding. Please check your acidities then study this reference and then come back with any further questions. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Organic_Chemistry/Map%3A_Organic_Chemistry_(McMurry)/20%3A_Carboxylic_Acids_and_Nitriles/20.04%3A_Substituent_Effects_on_Acidity

Looks suspiciously like you nailed it. +1

Don't think this guy is a kiddie. Someone with that handle has been to many debating, christian and maths sites over at least the past year and a half peddling the same stuff. here is a comment forma member on a maths site

Looks like part of some form of double flask reflux condenser. Here is one for essential oils preparation.

Are you serious or is this just an attempt to stir the pot ? Try googling accidental discoveries ie those with no prior theory eg https://interestingengineering.com/15-accidental-science-discoveries-that-changed-the-world There are many many important examples where observation preceeded theory. eg X rays, radio-activity, cosmic background, penicillin, .........

Include a “d” term for both and it may make more sense. It will cancel, of course. The change in the path difference is entirely from the upper path. Yes perhaps I was making things too complicated. @henk jan I really think your results are OK. Have you counted peaks correctly ? I make your estimate of the sound velocity 368 m/s If you look carefully, there is a big variation in apparent wavelength close to the mirror and a weak waveform at far distance as the pattern dies away. So I have chosen the 13 minima from the middle section to provide an average over 12 wavelengths. Also how accurate do you think the frequency of your sound is ? Does this now help ?

Since this is all you seem to want to know, the dependence of pressure is negligable for range of pressures encountered outside specialist facilities. Here is a table of dependence on temperature. As can been seen this varies by a factor of about 100 over the range 0oC to 60oC Both temperature and pressure dependence are experimental facts, which is why everyone is talking about tables of data. I would suggest looking in the Chemistry or Science reference section of your local library. Since you are in Australia, they will probably have the latest copy of Kaye and Laby, Tables of Physical and Chemical Constants from the UK National Physical Laboratory or Lange's handbook of Chemistry or The CRC (rubber) book Rather smaller books of tables prepared for national schools and colleges, such as the Nuffield one or SI Chemical Data by Aylward and Findlay (Wiley) Or yes you could ask Google. But you need to go right back to my proforma standard equation A + B = C + D to know what to look for. You would also need this equation to use the information correctly, as exchemist has already indicated. There are four different possibilities Strong acid + strong base Strong acid plus weak base Weak acid plus strong base Weak acid plus weak base. Each of these leads to a different equation, which must be handled appropriately (differently). The last one is often used in a simplified form called the Henderson - Hasselbalch equation, (which itself has two versions) especially by the life sciences (biochemistry etc) where is was originally stated. So you see there is not one equation but getting on for 10 different ones depending upon circumstances and complexities and where my express version was heading. I am sorry you didn't like it as it involved me in substantial work on your behalf.