Theophrastus

How is mercury formed in the industrial burning of coal? (He said, mildly interested)

In regards to your question, I'll say the following, implying the facts on the wikipedia page to be correct. Knowing that sodium percarbonate decomposes to form peroxide and sodium carbonate, in an aqueous solution, technically speaking, the oxidiser in question, is really the peroxide, and thus, one can assume that its strength as an oxidiser is equal to hydrogen peroxide, as that is really what you are refering to. To your second question, I sadly have to say no. You see, what occurs in such a reaction is that the peroxide breaks down to form oxygen and water. The oxygen is then taken by aluminum to form aluminum oxide. It does not occur in a one- step single- displacement redox reaction where the aluminum "steals" the oxygen, from the peroxide. Rather, it is willingly donated, in the decomposition of the peroxide. 2(Na2CO3- 1.5H2O2) > 2Na2CO3 + 3H2O2 H2O2 > H2O + O 2Al + O2 + O > Al2O3 Technically, the rusting of the aluminum metal releases just as much heat as the burning of acetylene gas, however this heat is released over such a prolonged period of time, that there would be no noticeable effects, and as such, would not lead to instantaneous thermite- esque heat. I recommend looking up reaction kinetics, and the like. Cheers!

I know that one can rather crudely subdivide, all tissue within the body into nervous tissue, connective tissue, muscular and epithelial tissue, and this is the basis, of my question. If teeth, are not bones, then what type of tissue due they consist of? By means of reason, I've deduced that they too, are probably connective tissue, but if so, to vary from bones, they must have different types of cells and/ or a different intercellular matrix between the cells. Does anyone know what the matrix of teeth is, (chemical structure would be most helpful) and perhaps how they differ from bone, in their structure? Many thanks.

While I doubt that you could attain infection via the eustachian tube, however, I have heard of cases in which an infection in the middle ear, was able to spread as far as the mastoid, due to the sinal connections between the two.

Ah, I should have clarified... I'm not looking for a method that can tell the total composition of the soil but rather the presence of certain key compounds within it, silicates, carbonates, etc. Minerals, I was thinking of finding a way to determine their chemical structure, by means of chemical analysis, as well as the overall structure, which can be determined by breaking it, and examining the fracture, and of course, by external means. I suppose streak and flame test may be useful for certain minerals as well. That said, any ideas?

You have to also remember that water is also not uniform throughout and does bear various impurities, in the form of various suspended particles, and varying quantities of gaseous and solid solutes. Another thing to consider is temperature in that the water's depth determines its temperature, and as such, lower temperatures, in deeper areas allow for a greater concentration of gaseous solutes, due to their decreased temperature, while areas closer to the surface, allow for a lesser concentration of gaseous solutes, and a higher one for solid ones, as the temperature is greater. To conclude, there is no way to measure the reduction potential of water in the form of lakes and rivers, upon the Earth's surface. And on the concept of rivers, any movement of water in the designated body, would distort measurement even further.

How will oxidizing glycerol, significantly lower its boiling point?

:confused:I'm not quite sure whether this is the right place to pose such a question, however I'm rather interested, but what common methods of analysis, are available to test the chemical composition of various stones. So far, I've come up with acid testing, which can be used to identify the presence of carbonates and sulfides. Density, streak- test, and the like could be used as well, however they are not so conclusive and concrete, rather, formulating a guideline. Any help? I was thinking of using this type of data to contrast the chemical features and composition of soil and bedrock, and contrast it to the flora within it. I know I've mentioned some methods for stone, however, are there any similar ways to test soil composition, and the like? Help surrounding this topic would be most appreciated.

I personally have thought homeopathic medicine to simply be the equivalent of herbal medicine. Saying that, as many modern day drugs are comprised of chemicals, such as the various alkaloids, that reside within plants, I'm surprised why these homeopathic infusions and decoctions, are used in place of their pure constituents, attained by a chemical means, however, not all herbal remedies are fake, though if you see no ingredients listed on the bottle, and no proper certifications, you can conclude it is probably worthless, however, as I said, these herbs were once man's only hope against malady, however, these same components are now being synthesised chemically to insure higher concentrations, less impurities, and side effects as a cause of those impurities. For example willow bark was known to relieve pain since the seventh century, however later (I believe in the 1800's) it was found that this effect was due to salicylic acid. However, when purified, it caused digestive problems (and tasted absolutely terrible). As such, it had to be modified, the final product finally taking the form of acetylsalicylic acid, more commonly known as aspirin.

In the part regarding metal oxides, you were right to conclude that these are insoluble, due to the fact that they form hydroxides, as is demonstrated with copper, below: Cu(II)O + H2O > Cu(OH)2 In regards to your second question regarding lithium, I am rather unsure what you mean, however, I'll give it ago. I you are reffering to the particular instance, you are right to say that LiOH is favourable, however air has a rather low hydrogen content, most of which is found in the form of water vapour, as such, the lithium, would form lithium oxide with no other option. Is that the information you required, or, what was your intent? -Theo

ahh, I'm such a fool; forgot to factor in the decomposition of water!

You are forgetting that the electrolysis will brake up HCl into hydrogen and Chlorine gas, and speaking from a generalized perspective, pure chlorine gas, is not something you want to deal with in large quantities, unless you observe necessary safety conduct. The magnesium, however is more likely to react with the HCl directly, rather than the H2O, leading to the formation of magnesium chloride. However, as the HCl decomposes, you'll get hydrogen as well as oxygen. It is my understanding that you are doing this, in an aqueous, HCl solution, to forgo the high temperatures involved in using molten chloride salts, however the method is rather inethical, as you shall obtain hydrogen as well as chlorine gas. You'ld also have to be careful in choosing your anode and cathode, as these can sometime initiate other reactions. To conclude such a method would not be practical. Your end product, which you'ld expect to be chlorine, would be intermixed with hydrogen, and as such, would result in impurities, due to the formation of HCl, and any present hydrogen. 2HCl > Cl2 + H2 Mg(Cl)2 > Mg2+ + Cl2 Mg2+ + 2HCl > Mg(Cl)2 + H2

I'ld say 1500x magnification, with an optical microscope, is suitable for observing most types of micro cellular organisms, including various types of plant cells, amoeba, protozoa, euglena, animal cells etc., however, I suppose that this may vary further, based on what you desire to see. Electron microscopes, (TEM's and SEM's) can be used to view organelles, as well as the dark nuclei, which can be viewed relatively well, at around 400x mag. It really depends on your needs. So, what is it that you desire to use the microscope for, or rather, what is it you desire to achieve?

Agreed, and I find the ribbon is particularly fun, as you can also use it as a fuse for certain exothermic reactions, or coerce a reaction between the magnesium and another substance, by burning it under it. For example magnesium in water makes magnesium hydroxide, and magnesium in sand, can be used to harvest silicon. (Albeit the sample will be full of impurities.) It's also recommended that for safety reasons, you stay clear of the magnesium fumes. Good ventillation, would suffice, however a fume hood is preferable. Cheers!

Simply and concisely, my response to your question is no. Reacting acids with it, shall only produce another salt, and its reactivity makes it difficult to displace. Decomposition of the compound can be induced at relatively low temperatures, around 180 degrees celsius, however this leads to the formation of water, and magnesium oxide. This magnesium oxide then requires incredibly high amounts of heat to allow for the decomposition of the compound. Seriously speaking, I think that it would be a lot easier to simply purchase magnesium, as it is quite a useful chemical to have on hand. Due to its light weight, it used in a variety of lightweight applications, such as alloyed in aircraft parts, and the bodies of pencil sharpeners. The latter, that I have mentioned, is actually quite an easy method, as you can tell that the metal used is magnesium based on its weight. Its best that the blade and screw are removed though, as these are commonly made of steel. Best of luck, ,Theophrastus ps: what do you need the magnesium for. If it is a particular application, a substitute can be used.

While I am quite flattered, the question remains; the toxicity of vapours, accounted for, all one is left with is any heat that may be generated by the reaction. Of course, using a pyrex erlenmeyer flask and beaker, the apparatus can withstand temperatures, ranging up to around 790 degrees, and I strongly doubt that this reaction may exceed this point: that said are there any other dangers one is to be aware of? Note: My experiments have been momentarily disbanded, by a lack of free time, in which to obtained denatured alcohol for my burner, however, these shall ensue in due time, along with appropriate responses, ,Cheers to all! ,Theo

I'm not quite sure, but similarly, I agree with captain panic, in that while glycerol may increase the viscosity, but a cross- linked polymer is required. Furthermore, I was recently interested in glycerol's (or glycerine's, as its more commonly known) uses, and I believe I read something regarding that if it is not combusted in a particular fashion, it will give off acrid fumes, which I assume are generally an unwanted by- product, however of glycerine's combustion, I really know little concrete knowledge of. Some justification or reconciliation by others is required, I suppose. Any help?`

I'm actually rather interesting in the LHC!

To summarise the lesson I have learned today, I suppose I can include two things: 1) Science is not nearly as orderly as a beginner (myself) might expect 2) Sarcasm on a forum is actually rather fun to read (lol) Thanks for the input!

In terms of how well, or easily two compounds react its true that reactivity is really an inexistent concept in that modifying temperature, pressure, addition of a catalyst, etc. Cand easily modify this, however, when I generally think of reactivity, I think of the metal reactivity series, which can also be thought of as an inverse of the standard reduction potentials E(insert degrees symbol here) red (reduction). This is often used to predict what occurs, in the case of a redox reaction, however, as I have learned, even this does not bear 100% accuracy. (Well, science, in nature, being a "real," and not an abstract concept (like mathematics), can never be proven. For example, let us say that I am to make the statement that all sheep are white. No matter how many white sheep I find, I can never be proven correct, while the appearance of but one black sheep, shall be enough to disprove my theory) (The example I used is a rather famous one. I would state it as a quote however, I cannot remember who to attribute this to.)

Ah, you are right... I'm missing the hydromium ion, as well as vinyl, in regards to nonmetallic cations. Anything else? I'm at a loss. Its a shame that herein lies an exception, as these exceptions are more than rather annoying. Totally unrelated, but I'm actually rather surprised you haven't heard of double- displacement reactions, it is one of the basic kinds. I suppose you probably learned of their separate classes, neutralization, and precipitation reactions. Shame... thanks for the help, ,Theo

I didn't mean exactly as a metal, but rather as a cation, as the ammonium ion is the only nonmetallic cation, with the exception of hydrogen. I was hoping that ammonia, too had a place on the activity series, just as hydrogen, despite its nonmetallic nature. You are right that this is for some redox chemistry I'm interested in performing, as I generally find that practice without any supporting theoretical work, is like a mad scramble in the dark, with no light to lead one. Certainly, there have been cases in which such a strategy has prevailed, but I generally dislike such methods, so I was looking for some help. In regards to Captain Panic's post, in regards to any formal chemistry education, I have currently just begun high school, and as such have not had any exposure in a school setting, however I have been reading up a lot on chemistry: I'm currently starting to do some work from an AP textbook I have obtained, hoping to do the test earlier than most do, if possible. I've also begun to tread on some experimental work, however as I proclaimed in my first post, I am woefully inexperienced (in the literal sense of the word) in that field, and as such, when performing more dangerous work, generally consult with one of my family friends (a former physicist) as well as this forum. (returning to the concept at hand) Any thoughts? Note: Now that I think of it, I could through ascending activity of metals predict a relative position for ammonia...

I agree with hermanntrude, as if the copper sulfate reacted with water, there would be no such a thing as an aqueous copper sulfate solution; which of course there is. (Sulfuric acid isn't blue.) In regards to the experiment, I've decided to go with, I ought to be able to perform it this weekend, implying that I'll be able to buy some more denatured alcohol, for my burner, soon. I'll post the results on this thread for your(plural) benefit. Thanks for all the input! Cheers!

Good point on that last bit UC! I've got to admit that the fact did strike me, though I still decided to give it a go. I'm actually interested how this may have been done in the past, as hundreds of years ago, a spanish alchemist, with quite limited resources might I add, Jabir (actually, this was only an alias he used), distilled it for the first time, by some strange means. Probably not ethical by todays standards, most likely, but I am curious... how was it done in the past. Personally, I'm going to try bubbling SO2 through 3% peroxide, then boiling the solution down, to a more feasible 10- 15% concentration of acid. (the boiling shall also decompose any remaining peroxide) Note: (courtesy of the hazmat policy) SO2 is a poisonous gas, and all apparatus used for such an experiment must be tested to leaks prior to its execution.

In regards to Severian's lab, I must admit, I am so impressed. You work at Cern, in Europe? I very quickly realised the pictures as the classic images of Large Hadron Collider, that's currently under way deep underground, in France and Switzerland. The biggest collider yet. Pretty impressive... either you are fraudulent in nature, or you work at Cern. Do reply to the following. If it is the latter, I'm sorry for the accusatory tone. It's simply that I couldn't help to notice that those were the exact images that were sent all around the web. They even featured in a National Geographic regarding the new facility being built there. A response, perhaps?