weiming1998

The formation of potassium from KOH and Mg does not go against conventional chemistry. It only goes against simplified chemistry. I explained the reason why this reaction works, and there is no definite reason to claim that this reaction doesn't work, even in theory. The formation of calcium metal from CaSO4 and aluminium though, is a different matter. There is no reason to suggest that this reaction would be energetically favourable, and that the calcium metal wouldn't reduce the sulfate. There are no chemical tests for calcium metal, but washing the sludge from the thermite in mineral oil, then pick out the metallic bits and put them in water should be good enough. Another method is to pour water onto the sludge, pass the gasses formed through some bleach, and then lighting the resulting gas.

The are multiple definitions of a base. Only one definition of a base (Arrhenius) states that it must produce OH- ions upon dissolving in water. This only applies to aqueous solutions (or solutes dissolved in solvents that are polar), so it will not work for products not dissolved in water. Gaseous ammonia fits in two other definitions for a base, though. The Bronsted Lowry definition of a base states that a base is a proton acceptor. Ammonia (NH3) accepts a proton from an acid (gaseous HCl) to form ammonium ions (NH4+), thus making it a Bronsted-Lowry base. Gaseous ammonia is also a Lewis base, donating a pair of electrons to a proton (in acids), also making the ammonium ion. So yes, gaseous ammonia is a base.

To be exactly correct, the H+ ion doesn't really catalyse the reaction, as it is a reactant itself. It's just that the reaction proceeds a lot slower without the acid, because the H+ concentration in a plain solution of K dichromate and water is too low for the reaction to proceed quickly, but it will still proceed due to the fact that when H+ is consumed, more dichromate/water hydrolyses to form H+ and CrO4(2-) or H+ and OH- to "balance out" the loss of H+. But yes, acetic acid is added to provide the H+. I'm not sure why acetic acid was used though, HCl or H2SO4 is a much more common acid for this purpose. And yes, at the end, HCrO3- is formed. This then disproportionates into Cr3+ and more HCrO4- in the presence of an acid.

Ok, I'll explain: First, the acetic acid (a stronger acid is typically used) protonates the CrO4(2-) ion formed from dissolving sodium chromate in water). The formation of the dichromate can be summed up by two reactions: 1, Protonation (CrO4(2-)+ H+--->HCrO4-) 2, Dehydration (2HCrO4- <-----> Cr2O7(-2)+H2O) Note that Cr2O7(-2) can be rehydrated back into HCrO4-. The proper oxidation reaction is catalysed by H+. The balanced equation is as: Cr2O7(2-)+3C6H11OH(cyclohexanol)+8H+---->2Cr3+ +3C6H10O(cyclohexanone)+7H2O. Cr(IV), if it exists and is formed, would be a short-lived product of the reduction of dichromate, and decomposes to Cr(III), which is green-coloured. This site (http://www.organic-chemistry.org/namedreactions/jones-oxidation.shtm) can explain more clearly of the exact mechanism of the oxidation.

A chunk of calcium? I wouldn't be so sure if I was you. A chunk/chunks of molten, then solidified aluminium mixed with various sulfides and oxides can have a similar metallic lustre as a chunk of calcium. It reacts with HCl as well. Aluminium sulfide, which can form, generates bubbles of H2S and a precipitate of Al(OH)3 on contact with water, and that can be mistaken for calcium reacting in water. The only way that I know of to be absolutely sure is by attempting to light the mixture with a torch. Calcium in appreciable amounts would burn similar to magnesium, but with an orange flame. Try that. Second, yes I can say something against it. All findings and discoveries in science are heavily criticised before they become valid theories/findings. Refusing people to criticise a discovery is anti-scientific. The formation of calcium metal goes against conventional chemistry. At the most, a very small amount of calcium is formed and embedded in massive chunks of oxides/sulfides. Plain faith that calcium metal is formed will not cut it, although if plain faith was your only evidence, so be it, just don't expect people to believe that you made calcium metal.

This site (http://hydrogentwo.c...odic-table.html) claims that hydrogen should actually be put in group 17 instead of group 1, basically claiming that hydrogen is a halogen. Whilst hydrogen do not exactly fit in group 1 as an "alkali metal" (it's a gas instead of a metal, except in special conditions, it forms negatively-charged ions, and it is far less electropositive than lithium), it absolutely cannot be a halogen. Firstly, electronegativity decreases as you go down the periodic table, and the element becomes more and more metallic. Hydrogen would have to be more electronegative than fluorine should it be a halogen. Second, it doesn't even behave like a halogen, being mainly in the +1 oxidation state (doesn't happen to halogens, the most stable compounds of halogens have either -1 or a very high oxidation state, like +7 or +5. An oxidation state of +1 is very unstable in all halogens. It is also reactive with non-metals like oxygen, but not with metals like iron (still reacts slowly though, to form hydrides), unlike all halogens. Hydrogen fits in its current position on the periodic table (group 1) much better than in group 17 (not a perfect fit, though). For example, it forms stable/meta-stable peroxides/superoxides, like alkali metals, particularly potassium and beyond. It has the same most common charge (+1) as all alkali metals, is mainly reducing like them, and reacts with halogens and oxygen vigorously, along with a few other examples. But a few of its properties doesn't fit with either the halogens or the alkali metals. Its boiling point, for example. It is also much less electropositive than lithium but only about as electronegative as iodine (in fact, I think iodine is more electronegative). I think hydrogen should just be in its own group (since when its electron shell is filled, there are only 2 electrons instead of 8), with it being the most similar to alkali metals. So, I'm wondering what other people's opinions on the matter is.

Why don't you agree? You can't just say "disagree" without explaining your reasoning. Care to explain why it would be favourable for calcium metal to form and not be destroyed instantly? By the way, another reason why no calcium metal is formed: The exothermic reaction. The reduction of Ca2+ by Al, if it even happens at all, would be NOWHERE NEAR as exothermic as the CaSO4+Al thermite. But the oxidation of aluminium from another oxidizing agent, the sulfate ion itself, which loses oxygen at thermite temperatures even without a reducing agent, is much more likely to be the cause of the exothermic reaction. Yet another reason. The reason why magnesium reacts with sodium hydroxide is because of covalent bonding. Magnesium partially covalently bonds to its oxygen, along with ionic bonding. Sodium ionically bonds strongly to oxygen, but hardly covalently bonds at all. So the additional covalent bonding formed is what makes this reaction energetically favourable. But think of calcium. I would think that it would also partially covalently bond to its oxygen, along with a strong ionic bonding. So Ca2+ oxidation of aluminium would not be energetically favourable (or favourable at all, unless you distil off the molten calcium metal). The formation of H2S that you observed is perfectly consistent with my hypothesis that sulfides are formed instead of calcium metal. But you have one more test, light it with a torch. If any calcium metal is formed, it would burn with an orange flame after you stop heating it with the torch. A flame test will only show the presence of calcium, not whether it is in the form of a metal or a compound, so that would not work.

Instead of working with high temperatures, how about this: 1, Dissolve the bismuth slag in HCl to produce bismuth (III) chloride 2, Add pieces of aluminium to reduce the bismuth (III) chloride to the metal. 3, Wash the resulting mixed metal powder with more HCl. Bismuth only dissolves slowly in HCl when oxygen is present, while aluminium and other impurities readily dissolves, so reasonably pure bismuth powder remains.

Ok then? Is this homework or some study you have to do? Well, I'll tell you this: 1, Magnesium reacts with acids (with water too, but slowly) to form a salt (it forms magnesium hydroxide in water) and hydrogen. Sprite contains CO2 in the form of carbonic acid and a mix of organic acids. 2, Bicarbonate liberates large amounts of CO2 on contact with acidic liquids.

I don't think any Ca metal is made at all, not just because Ca is more electropositive than Al (there can be exceptions to that, like making Na from Mg), but because of different reasons. Firstly, let's assume Ca metal was made. Aluminium sulfate would be a by-product. Usually, it is quite stable, but we're talking about thermite temperatures here. At that temperature, it will decompose to form Al2O3, SO2 and oxygen. Both the SO2 and oxygen can and will react with any calcium formed, especially at such a high temperature. Second, remember that although sulfates are not typically regarded as oxidizers, they can act as oxidizing agents at high temps. For example, Na2SO4 is reduced to Na2S easily in a furnace when roasted with charcoal. It is far more energetically favourable for aluminium metal to reduce the sulfate to sulfide, instead of actually "stealing" off the sulfate anion. Any potential calcium metal formed will also react with the sulfate quickly to form oxides of calcium and sulfides. So, at the end, instead of calcium metal, there is a mix of calcium and aluminium sulfides and oxides.

Your point makes no sense. Why do you think there is a lighter particle than hydrogen when it is the lightest molecule/atom? And why could it only exist on Jupiter? You forgot to note that in high-gravity conditions, ALL molecules equally gain more attraction to the "ground", so if a molecule on Jupiter is lighter than hydrogen, then it would still be lighter than hydrogen on Earth.

Why would you put magnesium ribbons in sprite? That's a waste of magnesium.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, and your procedure can be really dangerous. Firstly, boiling H2SO4 in one of those cooking Pyrex glass containers? I wouldn't go with that. They are made of specially treated soda-lime glass, not borosilicate, and won't take the heat of boiling concentrated H2SO4 (around 300 degrees). When the glass shatters, the hot, concentrated acid will spatter, eating through whatever you are boiling it on, making large mists of H2SO4, and possibly injure you whether you have baking soda to neutralise it or not. Use a proper laboratory beaker to boil the acid in, much safer. Second, adding NaOH to concentrated H2SO4 = violent reaction, possibly explosion. Acids and bases reacts vigorously to form salts. H2SO4 reacts violently with water alone, and I imagine the reaction between NaOH and it would be even more violent, shattering whatever you are holding the stuff in, creating very hot water vapour, and could burn you. You need to dilute down the acid first, and use a standard solution of NaOH instead of the pure solid. Finally, if you want to do titration, just titrate the battery acid directly (with a SOLUTION of NaOH). Boiling it down until it loses as much acid as it loses water gives a constant 96-98% H2SO4, so there's no point titrating.

Basically, the formula (pOH = pKb + log (molHCl / molNH3) is incorrect. The correct formula is pOH = pKb+log([HB+]/), where HB+ is the protonated weak base (in this case, NH4+) and B is the weak base (NH3). So, let's start from the beginning again. 300ml of 0.2M HCl is 0.06 moles of HCl. 200ml of 0.4M NH3 is 0.08 moles of NH3. 1 mole of HCl reacts with 1 mole of NH3, forming 1 mole of NH4Cl, so mixing 0.06 moles of HCl and 0.08 moles of NH3 gives you 0.06 moles of NH4Cl and a remaining 0.02 moles of NH3. Then, using the correct formula (pOH = pKb+log([NH4Cl]/[NH3]), the pOH is calculated to be approximately 5.22185, which equals to a pH of approximately 8.778, or rounded to 8.78, the answer in the answer key.

Yes, HCl is a strong acid, but because it is a gas in its non-aqueous form, we can take advantage of its volatility and make it out of weaker acids easily. Firstly, you don't need H2SO4 to make HCl out of NaCl. Sodium bisulfate, found as a pH down for pools, can be heated with table salt with a bit of water to liberate gaseous hydrogen chloride, which can be bubbled into water to make hydrochloric acid. H3PO4, a non-volatile (but weak) acid will also liberate HCl on heating with table salt. In fact, almost any non-volatile acid will do (but the temperature required would be quite high, above temperatures that softens glass for really weak acids like SiO2 with water). Apart from acids, metal ions that are especially Lewis acidic will work as well. An example would be Al3+ ions. Aluminium sulfate reacts with NaCl in the presence of water at elevated temperatures to form HCl and Al(OH)3. Even MgSO4 is reported to react with NaCl to form HCl. Contrary to some of the posts here, leading chlorine through water will not make appreciable amounts of hydrochloric acid. Chlorine gas reacts with water in an equilibrium, as: Cl2+H2O<---->HClO+HCl. At room temperature and pressure, only 0.5 grams of chlorine will dissolve in 100ml of water. Decomposing the HClO via UV light will only result in a very dilute solution of HCl, way too dilute for experiments. You can't even concentrate the solution by bubbling in more chlorine gas, as the solubility of Cl2 decreases even further at low pH. The exception is if you have some sort of reducing agent that instantly reduces the HClO formed by the hydrolysis of Cl2 to HCl, shifting the equilibrium to the right, but I can't think of any reducing agents that won't end up contaminating the acid produced/react with the acid.

This should explain it: http://www.word-detective.com/howcome/waterexpand.html Basically, liquid water flows past each other, forming hydrogen bonds with the surrounding water molecules. These hydrogen bonds break and reform. But when water is frozen, it crystallizes and bonds to surrounding molecules in a rigid, hexagonal ring-like structure, with empty space between the rings. The hydrogen bonds between the water molecules can no longer break and reform easily. This cause the water to expand as it freezes. An analogy is styrofoam. When styrofoam is melted the rigid polymer chains that traps the air between it collapses due to liquefaction, air is released and the previous "empty" spaces are filled, and it becomes much more dense than the original solid styrofoam. Same with water, except it occurs on a microscopic scale, and the space between the water molecules reform once it is frozen again.

Firstly, a "soul" is not proven to exist. Consciousness, as far as we know, is only a construct of the brain. Second, If the universe had a consciousness and needed a specific chemical/groups of chemicals for whatever reason, it could just make it so that planets are created with just the precursors of the chemicals/groups of chemicals in a soup or blend. This would be much easier than making a planet with the conditions to support life. Third, the most common problem associated with souls are when they started to appear and why. You could say that all animals have souls, but what about primitive animals like sponges, and single-celled organisms? If they have souls too, wouldn't bacteria, algae, etc have souls too? If they have souls too, what about proto-life, like replicating DNA/RNA strands surrounded by lipid/protein? Eventually, you get to simple organic chemicals, and they certainly don't have souls. You could also say "only vertebrates have souls" or "only humans have souls". But there's the same problem. For example, if you were to say that only vertebrates have souls, what about the animals that were beginning to evolve spines (very early fish)? The classification distinction between species/genuses/whatever of animals are not absolute. An analogy would be a timeline of human civilisation. Where exactly did Middle ages end and the Renaissance start? There is no answer, since these time periods are only human history stacked in recognisable chunks. So where exactly did souls start to evolve in an animal? And what is the evolutionary advantage of souls? I believe this question has to be answered.

Theoretically, there's the "island of stability" that is predicted to occur in particular isotopes of ultra-heavy elements with a certain amount of neutrons and/or protons. The problem is, this is almost impossible to test out, since rare, very heavy, very radioactive elements are required to collide together to even hypothetically be able to form these elements, but since the OP wants to write a science fiction story, it would be possible to include these elements and the island of stability in the story, albeit not as an essential element of alien life.

Vacuum distillation of 15% H2O2 should give H2O2 of a high concentration, since H2O2 is much less volatile than water. If one distillation doesn't give a high quality product, then repeated distillation would eventually yield H2O2 with a high concentration. Fractional (vacuum) distillation would take less time, though, if you have the equipment. As for titration, acidified KMnO4 should do, reducing the H2O2 to Mn2+. If your KMnO4 was acidified, no MnO2 should form and catalyse the decomposition of H2O2. Titration with a known hypochlorite solution also works, but finding an indicator for it would be difficult (I'd go with CuSO4 as the indicator, since Cu(ClO)2 is insoluble).

Sodium azide decomposes at 275 degrees Celsius (according to Wikipedia). Sodium metal melts at around 95-100 degrees celsius (lower than the boiling point of water) The decomposition reaction is very exothermic. So instead of powdered sodium, you would instead get a blob (or a few blobs) of molten sodium. And it will probably spatter due to the expanding nitrogen gases. At such a high temperature, the sodium could catch fire. Commercial airbags uses an electric shock to detonate the azide, but the exotherm of the reaction could be enough to liquefy the sodium formed by larger batches of sodium azide, not to mention that it would be exceptionally dangerous. I also expect sodium powder to be pyrophoric, especially at slightly elevated temperatures. So making sodium powder from the azide without any specialised equipment/inert gas would be improbable, almost impossible.

What does bleach do? It bleaches stuff! The dye in your soap was obviously discoloured by the bleach, like how clothes go lighter when immersed in it. As for the chemistry going on, it is rather complicated, and depends on the dyes used, but most bleaching agents (NaClO, H2O2), oxidizes the organic dye. Organic dyes are generally rather large molecules, containing oxidizable functional groups (hydroxyls, aldehydes, thiols/sulfides(maybe). Bleaching agents oxidizes or otherwise reacts with these functional groups (Hypochlorite reacts with certain ketone groups, while H2O2 reacts with ketone groups as well to form peroxides). Once these functional group is altered, the dye is a different chemical than before. At the end, there are no original dye molecules left, just those oxidized dye molecules, which are colourless, so the solution becomes colourless.

Apart from precipitating the Cu2+ as elemental copper by single displacement with Al, CuCl2 can be reacted with NaOH to form Cu(OH)2, which quickly dehydrates to CuO, a black, insoluble powder. Reacting CuCl2 with baking soda produces a green-blue precipitate of Cu (II) basic carbonate. Both of these are insoluble in water, and shouldn't dissolve that easily, thus being less harmful to the environment. You can also keep it as a curiosity. Another way to dispose CuCl2 is to simply not dispose it at all, but evaporate the solution. You will obtain green crystals of CuCl2.2H2O. Next time you want to etch, dissolve some of it in water, and add it to HCl to make an etching solution, which means you don't have to buy H2O2, as the CuCl2 now does the etching. Edit: The Cu (II) basic carbonate is the green precipitate you were talking about before from reacting baking soda and HCl. I'm not sure if it's hazardous (pretty sure it's not) but you can convert the green sludge to a black, crumbly powder of Copper (II) oxide via heating the dry/partially dry sludge to about 200 degrees Celsius. This copper oxide can be either disposed (copper salts by itself is used in some household products, and rendering copper salts insoluble only serves to decrease its environmental dangers) , kept, converted to other useful forms (like CuSO4) or sold on eBay or a similar site (Copper (II) oxide is widely used as a lab reagent and as an alternative oxidizer in thermite).

Electrolysis of salt is an extremely inefficient (but cheap) way of producing chlorine. It is slow, it requires a salt bridge, and graphite/platinum anodes are needed to prevent corrosion and loss of yield due to the chlorine reacting with the anode. There are so many very easy ways to produce chlorine gas. Combining bleach solution (NaClO/NaCl) or bleaching powder/pool chlorine (Ca(ClO)2/CaCl2) and a (relatively) strong acid (sulfuric, phosphoric, oxalic, etc) will produce chlorine, since the strong acid will make a mix of hypochlorous acid and hydrochloric acid on site, which will react with each other, forming chlorine. Using hydrochloric acid directly is fine too (in fact, the reaction would be faster). Another method of producing chlorine is reacting chlorine tablets (trichloroisocyanuric acid, TCCA for short) with hydrochloric acid, or similarly with a chloride salt and a strong acid. Reacting HCl with a strong oxidizing agent like KMnO4 or MnO2 will produce chlorine as well. Reacting H2O2 and HCl will not produce Cl2 in appreciable quantities, though, due to the inability of H2O2 to directly oxidize HCl to HClO, since hypochlorites react with H2O2 in a comproportionation to form a chloride and oxygen. In my opinion, if you want to make chlorine gas for chemical synthesis, not just as a curiosity, it's definitely worth it to get the chemicals and make it chemically instead of electrolytically.

Firstly, Benedict's reagent doesn't require non-aqueous chemicals. Reacting a known amount citric acid and sodium bicarbonate in stoichiometric quantities will give you sodium citrate in aqueous solution, which you can easily calculate the amount made. Secondly, as I have made Benedict's reagent numerous times, I found that the quantities of chemicals used don't need to be precise. Simply adding excess carbonate solution to citric acid solution, then adding in a bit of copper sulfate made a blue solution that turned brown in the presence of glucose. Finally, apart from iron contamination, the brown-yellow colour can also be partial decomposition of sodium citrate under heat, as organics are very prone to decomposing to a yellowish-brown liquid.

In the universe, the lighter elements are generally more common, due to the more common elements being made by the fusion of hydrogen and helium. Elements like carbon and oxygen are in great abundance mainly because there are direct and easy ways of producing them from fusion (collision of 3 helium atoms at once, which are extremely common, especially in large stars and red giants), and stemming from that, their low atomic weight. Their low atomic weight also contributes to the fusion being exothermic (for example, hydrogen (1) atoms fusing together releases more energy than helium (4) atoms fusing together, because the helium as a greater atomic weight than the hydrogen. So as the elements gets heavier and heavier in atomic weight, the fusion produces less and less energy until you reach an iron or nickel isotope. At that point further fusion no longer produces energy. The fusion of heavier elements are actually endothermic (absorbs energy), but the fission of these heavier elements slowly becomes more exothermic (releases energy). Heavy elements are generally made form fusion (maybe fusion, then decay/fisson of the heavier, unstable isotopes). So the heavier elements are generally less abundant, as the production of them are not favourable because their production absorbs energy. So what has this got to do with your question? Well, if heavy elements (like uranium or even lead) are quite rare, then ultra-heavy elements like the unknown elements (all first 118 elements are discovered) you hypothesized must be even rarer, both because their production would absorb large amounts of energy, and not be favourable, and because there are no obvious routes using abundant elements to synthesize them by fusion (such ultra-heavy elements would require quite heavy elements smashing into each other, when those heavy elements are very rare themselves). So even if there are a stable, ultra-heavy element/s, it is extremely unlikely to be utilised by life because of how rare it would be.