mississippichem

Care to explain the question in a bit more detail?

Mis-type on my part. Should be: A true violation would be some interval of time where the entropy of the entire universe increased decreased and did not decrease increase accordingly. A perpetual motion machine would accomplish this. However, this will simply never happen. Thought that was worth correcting as it was totally backwards. Sorry

Let's see the data then. "Speculations" does not mean "wrong". It means that the things you propose are not inline with mainstream science. They may be one day. Just not now. I would've moved Einstein to speculations had he been proposing relativity here before it had been accepted. However, Einstein would've had equations and data to back his assertions. 1. Then why waste your time? 2. I'm not a moderator (My only "mod powers" are moving threads to different sub-forums), though I'm sure a real mod will be posting a note soon about your attitude. 3. So you do agree that... A) your material is speculative. B) it belongs in speculations C) you are sorry about your attitude D) Im accepting your apology in advance.

Another thing that makes a magnesium fire bad is that using a CO2 fire extinguisher or water will actually make the situation worse. Mg reacts with water to give H2 and will burn in carbon dioxide. I wouldn't want to play with magnesium powder but bulk magnesium relatively safe. It has a large thermal conductivity...wikipedia says 156 Wm-1K-1 (about half that of silver's which is huge) so is tuff to ignite in bulk. The situation gets more dangerous as surface area increases.

Agreed. The OPer probably doesn't have the equipment or knowledge to do the necessary reduction step and obtain elemental Mg. spin1/2nuclei: I agree with hypervalent_iodine though your concern for safety is not misplaced and is appreciated by SFN. Thankyou. We've had problems with chemical safety here in the past and probably will in the future so keep alert.

Yes. We do in fact like to keep all the bull in speculations

This is speculative material. Moved to speculations.

Well then I must have the exact same bias as I reached a similar conclusion on the article. There is no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics here. You clearly do not understand the second law. This is not an insult, merely an accurate observation that is completely relevant to the discussion at hand. Start a thread on the second law of thermodynamics. I'm sure there are many here willing to explain it to you. Citation? A true violation would be some interval of time where the entropy of the entire universe increased and did not decrease accordingly. A perpetual motion machine would accomplish this. However, this will simply never happen. (Equivocation fallacy) [imath] \times [/imath] (Strawman) [imath] = [/imath] (disingenuous argument) [imath] + [/imath] (complete incorrectness). What part of the second law requires the use of the term "thermal radiation"? What does heat death of the universe have to do with the second law in this context?

No worries. Show me a scientist or mathematician who never makes mistakes, I'll show you a liar . If I had a dollar for every calculator syntax mistake I've made...well let's just say I wouldn't need any more grant money thats for sure.

It's alright, you would be saying so without a valid argument anyway so... *I jest harshly but in good humor.

Internal energy is a state function. It doesn't matter how I get from U0 to Uf. I think you may be confused about what internal energy is. [math] \Delta U = q + w [/math] [math] dU = dq + dw [/math] where dw is the differential of expansion work. The expansion work is given by: [math] dw = - \int_{V_{0}}^{V_{f}}pdV [/math] lets set [math] w=0 [/math] for the case of no expansion work being done on the system. [math] dU= dq [/math] [math] \Delta U = q [/math] So only in the case of no expansion work being done on the system are the change in internal energy and heat the same thing. As to your other example with the boat, remember that internal energy does not include kinetic energy from the motion of the entire system. A glass of water at 298K at rest and a glass of water at 298K moving at 10 m/s have the same internal energy (neglecting the super tiny relativistic effect). The first law of thermodynamics tells us that work and heat are basically equivalent with respect to a system. Work just requires a force to be exerted over a displacement, heat does not. When the internal energy has changed and the volume has not (no work has been done), heat has happened. I use the strange syntax "heat has happened" for a reason. I'm saying the a non-work transfer of Joules has happened across the system barrier. That is heat. Not a substance, but a phenomenon where energy is transferred. You would do well to pick up a book before claiming that some crucial thermodynamic quality doesn't exist.

I think this is the best definition of heat posited thus far in the thread. One could substitute the word temperature for "average kinetic energy" [imath] \frac{3}{2}NkT [/imath](ideal monoatomic gas), to avoid the confusion inherent with temperature. I would include [imath] dU=dq [/imath] at constant V and no additional W, and [imath] dH=dq [/imath] at constant P with no additional W to contrast how heat is not internal energy or enthalpy. I think it is also telling that no one ever sees a [imath] \Delta q [/imath] written down in thermo equations as it would be redundant. Much of this discussion I think stems from miscommunication and as already stated, "sloppiness" in the thermodynamic lexicon. "Heat" as a verb should be replaced.

Think about what effect an acetyl group might have on an amine nitrogen with respect to electron density. Should the acetyl group be electron-withdrawing or electron-donating to the amine-N of glutamine? How do electron withdrawing and donating groups affect the ionizability of a proton? What's more basic...an amine or an amide? Just a few questions to ask yourself that might point in the right direction.

Well, combustion is nothing but a very rapid oxidation reaction in this case so yes.

You got it. There is nothing but empty vacuum between gas molecules in the atmosphere. Though if you sectioned of some volume of air, one could hardly call it a vacuum as there are many gas molecules in that volume.

No one forced anyone to sell any gold. Poor financial decisions on the part of the poor is not automatically the fault of the rich. Predatory lending is a different story...

You say this as if you haven't been out of your field of expertise the entire thread. If you could see relativity from a scientific and mathematical standpoint, you would see how silly you are being. Keep the philosophy in philosophical circles. Call relativity subjective idealism if you want. It doesn't matter. GPS still works, length contraction is still observed, all of these phenomena still represent absolute, quantifiable, objective reality whether or not you class it into an arbitrary philosophical category that never helped anyone understand anything. We deal in testable predictions and mathematics. Yeah I know this is in the philosophy forum, but you are making such a large strawman on relativity that you've crossed into the scientific realm. Don't be surprised when you get called on it from a site full of physicists. Come back when you know how to work with 4-vectors. Up till now, this has been eight pages of absolute semantic nonsense. This isn't even philosophy.

The Li+ ion in the LiCl salt doesn't react with water. You're talking about the reaction: [ce] 2Li_{s} + 2H_{2}O \rightarrow 2 LiOH_{aq} + H_2 [/ce] LiOH is really just a solution of Li+ and OH- so the salt reacting with water would basically be the reverse of the one above. The one above is very exergonic (thermodynamically favored), so the reverse is extremely endergonic (thermodynamically disfavored) i.e. not going to happen spontaneously if at all.

Don't know about a universe with reversed entropy. But if you're looking for an example of a process that makes sense in reverse, we have something in chemistry called the principle of microscopic reversibility. It basically states that the chemical mechanism for a forward reaction [imath] A \rightarrow B [/imath] is the reverse of the mechanism for the reverse reaction, [imath] B \rightarrow A [/imath]. It can be easily shown mathematically that if this doesn't hold, perpetual motion machines are a thermodynamic possibility. Remember that it's totally possible to totally violate entropy locally but you must "pay the entropy tax", as a professor of mine put it, and satisfy the Clausius inequality for the entire universe, similar to what J.C. MacSwell stated in post #2.

They take the LiCl, melt it down and electrolyze it. This reduces the Li+ ion to Li metal, a one electron reduction.

See Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution for further elaboration on what Timo stated. This is the way we find the probability of finding a gas particle with a given kinetic energy. Thought I would add this for clarity.

I'm not one to take tax increases likely but I've thought for some time now that there should be a fairly hefty tax on corporate retained earnings. This could incentivize the big blue chip companies to not keep as much on the books in these down economic times perhaps leading to employment expansion and a greater desire to acquire physical capital (trucks, buildings, land, etc.). This gets into touchy political territory though as the Republicans would most likely frame this as a tax on savings. I couldn't disagree with them here but i think it would be a justified tax on savings. Right now it is to a company's advantage to hold their money in these volatile economic and political times. This idea is in contrast to the current situation were hiring more employees is a non-trivial expense. You've got state and federal unemployment taxes, payroll taxes, healthcare (yeah I know the new healthcare law...got watered down a lot though, employers will still bear some costs I assume), and retirement matching just to name some employment related expenses. There are also regulations that only kick in once a business employs over a certain number of people. The incentivization structure for employment in our country is totally backwards of how it should be IMO. I might even go as far as to say we could afford to give corporations a tax break on their profit as long as we tax the hell out of retained earnings. That way expansion and hiring would become a very favorable thing to do as far as accounting is concerned.

It depends on how many significant digits he wants to keep. If not many then yes, I agree. I assumed that as this seems to be homework the OPer would be required to account for such or the problem would be somewhat trivial. If we are counting neutrons here then lets count neutrons. I remember similar problems from highschool chemistry. Besides, its good practice. If the example were to involve lets say Boron, it would most certainly make a difference as the isotopic abundance split between 10B and 11B is about 20%/80% respectively.

Hint: Don't forget to account for isotopic abundances. Most hydrogen atoms have no neutrons, but deuterium and tritium do.

The force is from the charge of the nucleus. Lower energy orbitals are closer to the nucleus.