studiot

Since there are differences between Physics and Maths, why have you missed out Physics?

Are we done with the original topic?

I Know you wouldn't, but I was trying to get the OP (as well as sensei) to do some work (thinking)

Well I'm glad Ophiolite has chosen to return. That was a professional summary of current knowledge. +1

Would you consider testing the gas with lead acetate paper?

So long as y is not zero.

Jerico

So when are you going to change your handle to Joshua?

The best way to do this is to look at the COSH regulations (control of substances hazardous to health) eg http://www.jmloveridge.com/cosh/Copper%20Sulphate.pdf By the way have you completed your lab you haven't come back on your thread there? Edit A further comment. this is not Organic Chemistry, why is it posted here?

It would be helpful if you can tell us whether you are an studying electrical engineering, physics or chemistry and if you have heard of Fermi?

This is where lord Kelvin went wrong 100+ years ago http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/failed_scientific_clocks/kelvin_cooling.html

To understand this first you need the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This states (for this purpose) thjat no two electrons can have the same set of quantum numbers. Now the usual quantum solution that we use to describe an atom is for an 'isolated' atom. That is it specifies a set of quantum numbers for an single atom in isolation. But if we have two such atoms the set will be the same. So what happens if we join them together? Well each nucleus influences the other's bonding electons (that is what bonding means) and the electrons directly involved in the joining enter what are known as molecular orbitals with enough quantum numbers to hold them all. Move on to a full crystal which is also called a periodic structure and you find 'super molecular orbitals' which can hold all the input electrons. Obviously in order to obey the Pauli Principle the super molecular orbital must 'split' into many closely spaced (sub)orbitals to accomodate all its electrons. Does this help?

Several questions at once here. I will try to sort them for you. No metallic bonding is not simply a big communal cloud of electrons. Yes there is what might be so described but the bonds remain directional and only certain electrons are able to join the party in the commune. Because the bonds are directional the bonds direction (and their valences) have to match to allow alloys - bonding between dissimilar metals. The bond's directions are reflected in the crystal structures of the metals. Now to you example of the same metal. If you machine chemically clean (oxide free) surfaces and press them together you can indeed 'weld' this way. Welding is another name for joing crystals. This is an established technique of cold welding. What else do you want to know?

Well you have three 'chemicals' in your list and HypervalentIodine has already told you what one of them is for. So what do you think the reactants are? Do you think the green colour is a reactant or a product?

You want levitation try this https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OqpPi8wNed8

Random is an adjective. You have applied it to a noun (correctly), but the difficulty is that a noun may have many properties and the applied adjective applies to some or even only one of them. That is the case with random that I was trying to make. Does this help?

I'm glad no one rushed to add negative points here. However I didn't see a question or point for discussion in your original post so what is your point? I also have a question of my own for you. Are you aware of the Frenet Formulae? A line in 3D Euclidian space has only 2 directions of curvature. So how is your Maths as well as your Physics? Do you understand the term geodesic?

I think there is a misinterpretation of the difference between causality and random here. An event can be causal or acausal, and still be random or non random. We know that a radiactive atom will eventually decay, the cause being its inherent instability. The timing of that decay is purely random. We also know that when it does decay that decay will follow a particular course.

Sounds like a salt bridge to me. What aspect of chemistry are you studying? Since you are meant to do the thinking for yourself in homework help, the least you can do is order your thoughts. You mentioned little green men (or was it green colour?), Bubbles in what? A reaction what reacts with what(a clue where is the green colour and what colour is the copper suphate, salt iron, water and filter paper?) C'mon describe the experiment properly. State what you observed. State whatever you think about what you observed and whatever questions that raises. It doesn't matter if your statements are right or wrong, making them is the way to learn.

Note the difference between the terms constant and steady. Edit in the light of your previous thread about bar magnets you might find this extract from an old text interesting. Note I have indicated statement (b) about the field lines.

Are you referring to Kolbe Electrolysis? Edit This should not be confused with the Kolbe Reaction. (as I originally did, sorry) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolbe_electrolysis Have you tried looking in the CRC handbook for 'half cell emfs' It's not included in my Kaye and Laby listing of these.

I have no idea whether you were referring to my comment or what went on whilst I was asleep (which is most of the time these days.) Your original question was in the present tense and I simply maintained that in my answer. I considered discussing history but decided that, as I had seen so many changes and wrong hypotheses come and go about conditions on other planets over the years, we simply do not yet have enough information to have any substantial degree of certainty about the history. We are gaining more measurements and are often able to discount or substantiate older speculations as a result but we still have a long way to go.

Would that depend on the velocity it materialised with, relative the the surface point over which it materialised. And what materialisation velocity would you prescribe?

As I understand it Mars is too cold and Venus is too hot https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/display.cfm?IM_ID=169

I tried an experiment swansont is correct, it will not move, so long as the masses are equal. +1