Basic Experiment

[Strange]

I guess that's why I'll be doing the experiment and not you. I don't really have anything to say until I can try it

because of one simple reason. If it works, then I can say there is more electromagnetic energy per cm^3 in the field of water/solution than there is in the Joule-Thomson field. Until then, it doesn't matter what I think.

 

So you are confirming that the reason you won't answer any questions is because you don't know anything.

 

You can do your experiment but as you don't know enough to understand the results, it seems a bit pointless.

 

Don't you think it would be more effective to learn a little basic physics before embarking on this project?

Edited September 10, 2015 by Strange

[James.Lindgaard]

strange,

You are afraid I know something, aren't you ? The questions being asked miss the "why".

Such as, why salt allows for ionization in water doesn't matter. And about all of the questions

you ask have nothing to do with why I am pursuing this experiment. And as I mentioned, if it

works which is simply to collect the heavier gases in a specific environment, then the "why"

will become interesting. I guess it's not something that's been demonstrated about the work

Joule and Thomson were involved in. And to think, they did their thing 163 years ago.

I will give you a hint though, people might think non-local behavior. But until I can show something,

it really doesn't matter.

[Mordred]

I don't believe it matters to anyone on the forum if your right or wrong. You've been given good advice both in the physics and chemistry. If you choose to spend the money prior to studying the known sciences involved in your application. That wasted money certainly won't be coming out of our pockets.

 

The best advice you've received so far is study what's involved both in the physics and involved chemistry first. Prior to spending your money on something that may or may not work. If you choose to ignore that advice its your problem not ours.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Mordred

[James.Lindgaard]

Mordred,

I have studied what I am doing. That's kind of why in my opinion, most questions had

nothing to do with this experiment and it has nothing to do with chemistry. Separating

molecules by molecular mass is not chemistry.

Of course, you'll probably say the water based solution. That's what the focus has been on

while this experiment is to demonstrate something else. I have said that it involves Joule's

and Thomson's work yet nobody has mentioned them except for me.

And with this experiment, if it is successful, will give a deeper explanation of the "why the

Joule-Thomson Effect is right". I guess it would suck if someone found value in such old

work, right ?

[Fuzzwood]

Why would it suck? It will open new research field? Perhaps remove the tinfoil hat and the notion that this site is somehow a conspiracy against your person...

[Mordred]

1) what material are you going to make the device out of? Will it act as an anode or cathode?

2) What effect will salt water have on said body, including passing a current through it ?

3) how will the individual chemicals react with each other with or without passing current through the solution?

 

4) how much water will dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen due to the current?

 

Nothing to do with chemistry right. Big WRONG

[swansont]

@swansont,

So if the stuff in the water allows that "solution" to attract co2, that's a problem ?

The problem is the attention to detail. You say one thing but then claim you mean something else, or think it's no big deal that you have the detail wrong. Added to that is the reticence to acknowledge critique and correction. It speaks to the confidence one would have in assuming you know what you are talking about.

 

How is it a vacuum if there is CO₂ there?

 

 

This particular criticism is off the mark. Standard lab use of the word "vacuum" refers (in my field, at least) to any system substantially below atmospheric pressure. A system at 1 torr of pressure would be called a vacuum. A pretty crappy one, but a vacuum nonetheless. And you might monitor the gases you were pumping out, including CO₂. So CO₂ can be present in a vacuum.

[James.Lindgaard]

Mordred,

As I told strange, there is a reason why I am pursuing the experiment.

It has nothing to do with chemical reactions. Wait a minute, it does, After all,

salt will allow for a current to pass through water. The experiment is not about

understanding why salt ionizes water. It's about something else.

I have been trying to say that anyone focusing on that is missing the basis of

the experiment. For it's simplicity, I like it. After all, what did scientists have to work

with back then.

I'll try to clue you in and maybe strange will get one as well. When a current is passed through water,

it might increase the amount of electro-magnetic energy associated with a water molecule. If so, one

observation that I hope to make is that the field above the water, you know, in the same chamber becomes

more excited which will as a result attract heavier molecules.

Why I would consider this is because the next field which would be a Joule-Thomson Effect would have less

excitation and as a result would not be attractive to heavier molecules. You know, matter's level of excitement/kinetic potential affecting it's environment.

I'm just not sure how the 2 of you missed that. But that is why I am , kind of tired of repeating myself, pursuing

this experiment. with the Joule-Thomson Effect, it is possible that as gaseous molecules increase the distance between

them that the amount of electro-magnetic energy that they have decreases. Because of this, the space between molecules will

retain some electro-magnetic energy. Hence the reason for cooling/lower level of excitement in gaseous molecules.

Sorry, but I'm just not seeing any chemistry here.

Edited September 10, 2015 by James.Lindgaard

[Strange]

strange,

You are afraid I know something, aren't you ?

 

Why would I be afraid of that. I like this forum because there are a lot of people who know much more than me that I can learn from. (You are clearly not one of them.)

 

The questions being asked miss the "why".

 

I have frequently asked you "why" questions. You have refused to answer them, in the same way you refuse to answer any questions. Presumably because attempting to do so would expose your ignorance.

 

And about all of the questions you ask have nothing to do with why I am pursuing this experiment.

 

I have asked why you think it wilol work; what is the theoretical basis for this experiment. You have no answer other than "magic".

 

And as I mentioned, if it works

 

You have given no reason or explanation as to why it should work. Which is why no one takes you seriously.

[Klaynos]

You've still not answered my question. Answering questions is a requirement of this forum.

[Strange]

When a current is passed through water, it might increase the amount of electro-magnetic energy associated with a water molecule.

 

In what way is electro-magnetic energy (i.e. light) "associated" with a water molecule?

 

And why would you expect this to increase?

 

Feel free to use mathematics in your reply.

[Mordred]

Mordred,

As I told strange, there is a reason why I am pursuing the experiment.

It has nothing to do with chemical reactions. Wait a minute, it does, After all,

salt will allow for a current to pass through water. The experiment is not about

understanding why salt ionizes water. It's about something else.

I have been trying to say that anyone focusing on that is missing the basis of

the experiment. For it's simplicity, I like it. After all, what did scientists have to work

with back then.

I'll try to clue you in and maybe strange will get one as well. When a current is passed through water,

it might increase the amount of electro-magnetic energy associated with a water molecule. If so, one

observation that I hope to make is that the field above the water, you know, in the same chamber becomes

more excited which will as a result attract heavier molecules.

Why I would consider this is because the next field which would be a Joule-Thomson Effect would have less

excitation and as a result would not be attractive to heavier molecules. You know, matter's level of excitement/kinetic potential affecting it's environment.

I'm just not sure how the 2 of you missed that. But that is why I am , kind of tired of repeating myself, pursuing

this experiment. with the Joule-Thomson Effect, it is possible that as gaseous molecules increase the distance between

them that the amount of electro-magnetic energy that they have decreases. Because of this, the space between molecules will

retain some electro-magnetic energy. Hence the reason for cooling/lower level of excitement in gaseous molecules.

Sorry, but I'm just not seeing any chemistry here.

Oh my mistake here I thought you wanted to design a system that would be practical and account for any side reactions due to materials and impurities for maximum efficiency? Edited September 10, 2015 by Mordred

[Sensei]

 

When a current is passed through water, it might increase the amount of electro-magnetic energy associated with a water molecule.

 

In what way is electro-magnetic energy (i.e. light) "associated" with a water molecule?

 

And why would you expect this to increase?

 

Feel free to use mathematics in your reply.

 

 

Well, temperature of water is increased while passing current through it.

So it'll emit photons in not visible range (as always with such low temperatures as 273.15 K-373.15 K) microwave/infrared region of spectrum.

Use any IR thermometer on boiling water to read temperature change from distance (because of emitted radiation from body).

[Mordred]

 

 

Ask yourself this question Is all forms of salt equal in conductivity?

 

Wouldn't you want the most ideal form of salt?

[Strange]

 

Well, temperature of water is increased while passing current through it.

So it'll emit photons in not visible range (as always with such low temperatures as 273.15 K-373.15 K) microwave/infrared region of spectrum.

Use any IR thermometer on boiling water to read temperature change from distance (because of emitted radiation from body).

 

Thank you for actually answering a question.

 

So you want to increase the temperature by passing a current through it (this is kinetic energy not electromagnetic energy). I suspect it would be more efficient to do this by using a traditional heating element.

 

What is the significance of the the IR radiation emitted by the warmer water?

 

You do realise that the solubility of CO₂decreases with increasing temperature? So if you want to "attract" more CO₂, you should cool the water, not heat it.

 

This is why a basic understanding of physics would be useful.

 

Doh.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Strange

[Mordred]

Lol the post you quoted was by Sensei not the OP

[Strange]

Lol the post you quoted was by Sensei not the OP

 

Doh. I should have realised that he wouldn't suddenly start answering questions (in an unexpectedly intelligent way!)

[James.Lindgaard]

@Klaynos, I did answer your question.

 

@Mordred, with the basic experiment, if it can separate some gases according to molar mass, then

other people better qualified than myself might take an interest in it.

[Klaynos]

No. You didn't you put together some apparently random words.

This

 

Why do you think cold ensembles would be influenced by an electric field?

Isn't answered by this

@Klaynos,

It would be the absence of background radiation. In a situation like this, heat would normally flow towards the cooler environment. with something like a modified CRT, the "heat" would be pursued. The same might be true with a water based solution.

 

At all

It shows a complete lack of understanding of what heat is. Heat isn't a thing. Your answer makes no sense.

[John Cuthber]

I don't really have anything to say until I can try it

 

So far, that is the only thing you have said that makes a lot of sense.

Why not stick with it?

[James.Lindgaard]

John, Klaynos missed his own mistake. I take it no one is familiar with the Joule-Thomson Effect.

That does seem to be the case. And I guess this is why no one understands why I will be doing

this experiment when I am able. The only suggestion I could make is for someone to become familiar

with the work that my experiment is based on. And while some would say reading up on it is enough,

that's only if you want to pass a test using cliff notes. To understand something does take time.

[Sensei]

@Fuzzwood,

had cancer 6 years ago, surgeon made a minor mistake, it had serious consequences.

In a sense, it has put my life on hold. close to being back to where I can have a life.

Still, with posting in here, if it does work, then at least I'll know better how to phrase everything

or what the concerns are about such an experiment.

 

You mean that near death experience, inspired you to become scientist.. ?

 

IMHO you should start from buying equipment. For a start:

- distillation set up: Graham condenser, Dephlegmator, retort stand, few clamps different models (to hold condensers, to hold round-bottom flask etc.), hot plate for heating.

- round-bottom flasks 50mL-1000 mL,

- beakers 50mL-1000 mL,

- graduated cylinders 50mL-250 mL.

- pocket jeweler's weigh 100 g/+-0.01g, 500 g/+-0.1 g

For learning about quantum physics, spectral lines of different gases etc., behaving of light, optics:

- discharge tubes: Hydrogen, Helium, Neon, Krypton, Xenon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO₂ f.e.

- source of high voltage, such as Van der Graaf generator, Cockcroft-Walton generator.

- prism

- Young's slits different models, diffraction grating, polarization filters (at least two)

- at least three laser models, red, green and blue.

 

You will also have to have source of CO₂, dry ice to buy, or from reaction.

The easiest one is to take baking soda NaHCO₃ and acetic acid CH₃COOH.

Reaction NaHCO₃ + CH₃COOH -> CH₃COONa + CO₂ + H₂O will release plentiful of carbon dioxide for further experiments.

Additionally you will have sodium acetate for other experiments. It's interesting substance. Search YouTube for details.

 

Fill flask by water, connect to distillation set up, turn on hot plate, and distill water. You will have any amount of it. And gain experience in distillation process.

Once you will have 1L distilled water in beaker, place in it electrodes and turn on electricity.

And you will see nothing happens. No bubbles of gas from either electrode. Ampere meter will show 0 A current.

Add salt, and bubbles will start appearing and ampere meter will show I>0 A.

Clean up beaker, and use tap water - there will be gas. Not as much as with salted water. But enough to be visible.

Clean up beaker, and use again distilled water. Turn on electricity. And put in it piece of dry ice.. and tell us, or better record on video all experiments, what happens.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Sensei

[Strange]

John, Klaynos missed his own mistake. I take it no one is familiar with the Joule-Thomson Effect.

That does seem to be the case. And I guess this is why no one understands why I will be doing

this experiment when I am able. The only suggestion I could make is for someone to become familiar

with the work that my experiment is based on. And while some would say reading up on it is enough,

that's only if you want to pass a test using cliff notes. To understand something does take time.

 

Why do you refuse to answer any questions? I assume because it would expose your total ignorance of the subject.

[John Cuthber]

John, Klaynos missed his own mistake. I take it no one is familiar with the Joule-Thomson Effect.

That does seem to be the case.

I'm familiar with the J-T effect, and I'm also familiar with this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

Are you?

Did it occur to you that the reason none of us mentioned it is that we know that it simply does not apply in this context, nor does it have anything to do with what you have been describing?

Are you, in short, too ignorant to realise how liitle you know?

[James.Lindgaard]

John and strange,

I will accept that I am wrong because the Joule-Thomson Effect has nothing to

do with gases being cooled such as will happen in my experiment. And that because

of this, it is not possible to manipulate one of the fields to attract heavier gaseous molecules.

I accept that I have been wrong from my first post.