The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can lavender Potassium Permanganate be used as a radiation antidote?  (Read 2654 times)

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Thorium mostly decays by releasing alpha particles, which have very poor penetrating power. There is also some degree of decay releasing gamma radiation (from 228Th), which is very penetrating. If you do not understand the difference between beta (which is what potassium does) and gamma radiation, you shouldn't have access thoriated anything!

Let me get this straight now, my thoriated tungsten welding rods, that are bought commonly at the local weld shops all over the U.S., that are listed as alpha omitter's, are now outputting constant beta and gamma radiation? The thorium that is joined with the very heavy Tungsten element in a 2:98 ratio. But the manganese is absorbing the more powerful beta radiation of the potassium? I think we should get our stories straight before we put all this on a science forum.

Are you saying if I cover a thoriated tungsten rod that registers on my Geiger Counter, with potassium permanganate that I will not be able to read it?

What is so funny is that I have been warning welders for many years that thorium is rather radio active. Their chemists claim I am paranoid and that, the level of radiation is minimal and not a health hazard. Haha. I have noted that with age, oxidation, the radiation increases. Also if you use them without proper noble gas coverage they can create a room full of radiation. Noble gas welding cylinders when almost empty often output other elements than pure noble gases. Which as I was mentioning in another topic that was closed, could kill. What I stated, I have done, so I know that who ever moderated that thread is not about the science or living but rather wants to play legal eagle.

Look at anything grown in South America the soil is highly radio active. Brazil nuts will register on a geiger counter. I have not tried a banana from South America though.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
OK, for a start, you seem to now accept that Newton didn't say this" As soon as you rotate a liquid mass, there is internal friction generated. No one can say anything differently and not be a fool. As soon as friction is generated there is a loss of energy between the energy applied to rotate the liquid and the heat generated. "
as you claimed earlier.

There's a problem with "Newtons claim is that energy is neither created or destroyed, just altered. "
Newton didn't have a clear definition or understanding of energy so he couldn't have made that statement.
"I just started using my potassium permanganate and I can assure you it so powerful that it must be seen to be believed. The lavender fluid turns brown after you soak flesh in it, mine, in a few minutes time, remarkable stuff really. "
Of course I believe it;I told you it would do that. You are the one who was saying it didn't.
Do you remember saying "It turns out the lavender solution does not stain the skin or anything else for that matter."?


I see that ChiralSPO has tried to explain basic radioactivity to you and all you could come up with was a straw man.
So I will have another go.
The gamma rays from thorium are much more penetrating than the beta particles from potassium.
That's why they go through lead.
It is, therefore, unsurprising that they go through tungsten.
It's also utterly irrelevant.

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Thorium mostly decays by releasing alpha particles, which have very poor penetrating power. There is also some degree of decay releasing gamma radiation (from 228Th), which is very penetrating. If you do not understand the difference between beta (which is what potassium does) and gamma radiation, you shouldn't have access thoriated anything!

Let me get this straight now, my thoriated tungsten welding rods, that are bought commonly at the local weld shops all over the U.S., that are listed as alpha omitter's, are now outputting constant beta and gamma radiation? The thorium that is joined with the very heavy Tungsten element in a 2:98 ratio. But the manganese is absorbing the more powerful beta radiation of the potassium? I think we should get our stories straight before we put all this on a science forum.

Are you saying if I cover a thoriated tungsten rod that registers on my Geiger Counter, with potassium permanganate that I will not be able to read it?

What is so funny is that I have been warning welders for many years that thorium is rather radio active. Their chemists claim I am paranoid and that, the level of radiation is minimal and not a health hazard. Haha. I have noted that with age, oxidation, the radiation increases. Also if you use them without proper noble gas coverage they can create a room full of radiation. Noble gas welding cylinders when almost empty often output other elements than pure noble gases. Which as I was mentioning in another topic that was closed, could kill. What I stated, I have done, so I know that who ever moderated that thread is not about the science or living but rather wants to play legal eagle.

Look at anything grown in South America the soil is highly radio active. Brazil nuts will register on a geiger counter. I have not tried a banana from South America though.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

"Let me get this straight now, my thoriated tungsten welding rods, that are bought commonly at the local weld shops all over the U.S., that are listed as alpha omitter's, are now outputting constant beta and gamma radiation? "

Yes. Naturally occurring Th is a mixture of isotopes and they emit a range of radiation.
Were you not aware of that?

"he thorium that is joined with the very heavy Tungsten element in a 2:98 ratio. But the manganese is absorbing the more powerful beta radiation of the potassium? "
It's not a matter of "powerful" . The gamma rays are more penetrating. That's how the 3 tyeps of radiation were originally distinguished into 3 groups - by their penetration range.

Also, you seem not to have noticed that the 40K which is doing the emitting is only about 0.012% of the potassium. By comparison the 2% of thorium is a lot.

"Are you saying if I cover a thoriated tungsten rod that registers on my Geiger Counter, with potassium permanganate that I will not be able to read it?"
No.
Nobody said that did they?
What we did say (by implication) is that a layer of manganese would severely attenuate the beta radiation from any potassium (or any other beta source).

You have not explained how you would do the self absorption correction that would be needed for this to be "spot on" science.

"What is so funny is that I have been warning welders for many years that thorium is rather radio active. Their chemists claim I am paranoid and that, the level of radiation is minimal and not a health hazard. Haha."
You need to hang out with better chemists.
The fact is that thorium is actually rather toxic- even without the radiation damage you should avoid it like you would nickel or lead.
They were right in saying the radiation wasn't the big problem.
I am more radioactive than a welding rod.

Incidentally re "Noble gas welding cylinders when almost empty often output other elements than pure noble gases. Which as I was mentioning in another topic that was closed, could kill. What I stated, I have done, so I know that who ever moderated that thread is not about the science or living but rather wants to play legal eagle. "
Gases mix.
So, the gas mixture coming from a full tank is nearly the same as that from an empty tank. Not that it matters much.

What you stupidly said was that you couldn't be asphyxiated by a pure noble gas. That's simply not true.
And since it's dangerous nonsense, that thread was killed.
It's not because anyone was being a "legal eagle". It's because you were spouting stupid dangerous tosh.
I suggest that you don't try to raise the issue again


This bit is funny
"Look at anything grown in South America the soil is highly radio active."
You really think that , in spite of the fact that South America is huge, all the soil there is the same.

Really?
Did you actually type that, and expect to be taken seriously?

The more "spot on" version of the science is that Brazil nut tress grow in rain forests.
Because there's a lot of rain, the soil is poor- much of the nutritional value is washed out.
The trees solve that problem by simply transpiring huge amounts of water.
In the case of the Brazil nut tree they don't do a very good job at excluding barium and radium when they try to take up calcium.
That's why the nuts are radioactive.

Why not check your "spot on" science before posting?
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Thorium mostly decays by releasing alpha particles, which have very poor penetrating power. There is also some degree of decay releasing gamma radiation (from 228Th), which is very penetrating. If you do not understand the difference between beta (which is what potassium does) and gamma radiation, you shouldn't have access thoriated anything!

Let me get this straight now, my thoriated tungsten welding rods, that are bought commonly at the local weld shops all over the U.S., that are listed as alpha omitter's, are now outputting constant beta and gamma radiation? The thorium that is joined with the very heavy Tungsten element in a 2:98 ratio. But the manganese is absorbing the more powerful beta radiation of the potassium? I think we should get our stories straight before we put all this on a science forum.

Are you saying if I cover a thoriated tungsten rod that registers on my Geiger Counter, with potassium permanganate that I will not be able to read it?

What is so funny is that I have been warning welders for many years that thorium is rather radio active. Their chemists claim I am paranoid and that, the level of radiation is minimal and not a health hazard. Haha. I have noted that with age, oxidation, the radiation increases. Also if you use them without proper noble gas coverage they can create a room full of radiation. Noble gas welding cylinders when almost empty often output other elements than pure noble gases. Which as I was mentioning in another topic that was closed, could kill. What I stated, I have done, so I know that who ever moderated that thread is not about the science or living but rather wants to play legal eagle.

Look at anything grown in South America the soil is highly radio active. Brazil nuts will register on a geiger counter. I have not tried a banana from South America though.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

"Let me get this straight now, my thoriated tungsten welding rods, that are bought commonly at the local weld shops all over the U.S., that are listed as alpha omitter's, are now outputting constant beta and gamma radiation? "

Yes. Naturally occurring Th is a mixture of isotopes and they emit a range of radiation.
Were you not aware of that?

"he thorium that is joined with the very heavy Tungsten element in a 2:98 ratio. But the manganese is absorbing the more powerful beta radiation of the potassium? "
It's not a matter of "powerful" . The gamma rays are more penetrating. That's how the 3 tyeps of radiation were originally distinguished into 3 groups - by their penetration range.

Also, you seem not to have noticed that the 40K which is doing the emitting is only about 0.012% of the potassium. By comparison the 2% of thorium is a lot.

"Are you saying if I cover a thoriated tungsten rod that registers on my Geiger Counter, with potassium permanganate that I will not be able to read it?"
No.
Nobody said that did they?
What we did say (by implication) is that a layer of manganese would severely attenuate the beta radiation from any potassium (or any other beta source).

You have not explained how you would do the self absorption correction that would be needed for this to be "spot on" science.

"What is so funny is that I have been warning welders for many years that thorium is rather radio active. Their chemists claim I am paranoid and that, the level of radiation is minimal and not a health hazard. Haha."
You need to hang out with better chemists.
The fact is that thorium is actually rather toxic- even without the radiation damage you should avoid it like you would nickel or lead.
They were right in saying the radiation wasn't the big problem.
I am more radioactive than a welding rod.

Incidentally re "Noble gas welding cylinders when almost empty often output other elements than pure noble gases. Which as I was mentioning in another topic that was closed, could kill. What I stated, I have done, so I know that who ever moderated that thread is not about the science or living but rather wants to play legal eagle. "
Gases mix.
So, the gas mixture coming from a full tank is nearly the same as that from an empty tank. Not that it matters much.

What you stupidly said was that you couldn't be asphyxiated by a pure noble gas. That's simply not true.
And since it's dangerous nonsense, that thread was killed.
It's not because anyone was being a "legal eagle". It's because you were spouting stupid dangerous tosh.
I suggest that you don't try to raise the issue again


This bit is funny
"Look at anything grown in South America the soil is highly radio active."
You really think that , in spite of the fact that South America is huge, all the soil there is the same.

Really?
Did you actually type that, and expect to be taken seriously?

The more "spot on" version of the science is that Brazil nut tress grow in rain forests.
Because there's a lot of rain, the soil is poor- much of the nutritional value is washed out.
The trees solve that problem by simply transpiring huge amounts of water.
In the case of the Brazil nut tree they don't do a very good job at excluding barium and radium when they try to take up calcium.
That's why the nuts are radioactive.

Why not check your "spot on" science before posting?

You claim that you are more radio active than my thoriated tungsten rods, I hope not for your sake. Thoriated tungsten rods if you bunch a few pounds of them together create heat. But according to you the thoriated tungsten rods are not emitting any dangerous radiation. But my potassium permanganate that I believe is the lowest radiation zone in my home, is almost nearing Fukushima levels of deadly output?

If you are afraid of potassium 40 witch is just potassium with a an unknown radio active contaminate, you would not eat most foods grown, because most are grown in radio active soil. Certainly fish are out of the question. Pure Tungsten also carries with it radio active contaminants that are considered by older welders to be worse than the known contaminate in Thoriated Tungsten. All carbon on earth now is highly contaminated by unknown radio active substances. Our livestock as well are all contaminated. I personally believe that potassium permanganate is a safe substance to use.

youtu.be/ClDHDcxBJhM

This is a video of some potassium permanganate solution being made, you have to copy and paste the youtu.be/ClDHDcxBJhM link into your browser though to get it to play.


Sincerely,

William McCormick


 
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
OK, for a start, you seem to now accept that Newton didn't say this" As soon as you rotate a liquid mass, there is internal friction generated. No one can say anything differently and not be a fool. As soon as friction is generated there is a loss of energy between the energy applied to rotate the liquid and the heat generated. "
as you claimed earlier.

There's a problem with "Newtons claim is that energy is neither created or destroyed, just altered. "
Newton didn't have a clear definition or understanding of energy so he couldn't have made that statement.
"I just started using my potassium permanganate and I can assure you it so powerful that it must be seen to be believed. The lavender fluid turns brown after you soak flesh in it, mine, in a few minutes time, remarkable stuff really. "
Of course I believe it;I told you it would do that. You are the one who was saying it didn't.
Do you remember saying "It turns out the lavender solution does not stain the skin or anything else for that matter."?


I see that ChiralSPO has tried to explain basic radioactivity to you and all you could come up with was a straw man.
So I will have another go.
The gamma rays from thorium are much more penetrating than the beta particles from potassium.
That's why they go through lead.
It is, therefore, unsurprising that they go through tungsten.
It's also utterly irrelevant.

Newton and Benjamin Franklin understood matter far better than any modern physicist today. Newton understood we live in a perpetual motion universe, as did Benjamin Franklin. If you understand ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode), you know we live in a perpetual motion universe. Inspect enough factory accidents and you will know we live in a perpetual motion universe. 

Just because now there are laws against understanding the universe, and the very proper stuffed shirts, follow those "laws" and therefore do not believe in perpetual motion, does not mean that rabbles do not understand it.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
« Last Edit: 20/09/2016 06:55:24 by William McC »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
My word! what a lot of nonsense
"You claim that you are more radio active than my thoriated tungsten rods, I hope not for your sake. Thoriated tungsten rods if you bunch a few pounds of them together create heat."
I also generate heat. However you will never measure the heat generated by a bunch of welding rods.
No- really you won't.
Try it- get a thermometer and a vacuum flask or two.

The specific activity of (natural) thorium is about .1 microcuries per gram and a rod weighs a few tens of grams of which a couple of percent- call it a gram on a good day - is thorium So each rod is about a tenth of a microcurie.

That's roughly the same as from the potassium in me.
https://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/consumer%20products/potassiumgeneralinfo.htm
And, of course I also contain other radioactive elements- notably carbon. So, "Spot on" science shows that you don't understand radioactivity.

"But according to you the thoriated tungsten rods are not emitting any dangerous radiation."
I never said that.
Why are you pretending that I did?
Is that your idea of getting facts "spot on"?


"But my potassium permanganate that I believe is the lowest radiation zone in my home, "
Again, I never said that- why lie about it? did you think that would somehow help?

" But my potassium permanganate that I believe is the lowest radiation zone in my home, is almost nearing Fukushima levels of deadly output? "
Again, that's nonsense and nobody said anything like it.
You are just a hopeless liar.
Incidentally, if the middle of the water tank isn't markedly less of a radiation zone, you are in trouble.

"If you are afraid of potassium 40"
Nobody is
"... witch is just potassium with a an unknown radio active contaminate,"
No it is not.
It's a radioisotope of potassium.

"Pure Tungsten also carries with it radio active contaminants that are considered by older welders to be worse than the known contaminate in Thoriated Tungsten."
Ok, now you are adding irrationality to the list; if it is pure tungsten then it doesn't have anything except tungsten in it does it?
So it doesn't have contaminants.
So they are not hazardous- because they don't exist.

"All carbon on earth now is highly contaminated by unknown radio active substances."
Really?
How?
It's difficult to see why the coal buried deep in the ground is "contaminated" as such- it just isn't pure carbon. Strip out the impurities and you don't have anything radioactive there.
Also, we know what radioactive materials are present - at least any that re present at significant levels. That's one of the nice things about radioactivity- it's really easy to check for.
On the other hand, as you showed earlier, it's easy to do that very badly indeed.

"I personally believe that potassium permanganate is a safe substance to use. "
What as?
It's still neurotoxic- people who are exposed to a lot of it lose their mental and physical functions.


 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile

"
.... If you understand ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode), ..."



It wasn't possible when you said it before, and it still isn't right now.


http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=45336.20

It was bad the first time round, but to reintroduce it seems "interesting"of you.
Why not just stop saying things that are clearly not factual?
Also, you rather seem to have lost focus on the actual topic.
How could something which is very dark, even if only present at 1% or so form pale crystals?
What's holding all the vast excess of water together?

I hope you enjoyed making the video. I'm obviously not going to bother watching it- I know what the stuff looks like. and, since this thread is in the "That can't be right" forum, it's unlikely than more than a handful of people will ever see your post.

 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile

"
.... If you understand ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode), ..."



It wasn't possible when you said it before, and it still isn't right now.


http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=45336.20

It was bad the first time round, but to reintroduce it seems "interesting"of you.
Why not just stop saying things that are clearly not factual?
Also, you rather seem to have lost focus on the actual topic.
How could something which is very dark, even if only present at 1% or so form pale crystals?
What's holding all the vast excess of water together?

I hope you enjoyed making the video. I'm obviously not going to bother watching it- I know what the stuff looks like. and, since this thread is in the "That can't be right" forum, it's unlikely than more than a handful of people will ever see your post.

Remember that a while back, I had stated that they used marble plates to plate metal to. And it was refuted by some. Since I have personally scrapped pounds of silver off of the large rotating marble blocks in the platting machines for reclaiming, I find it kind of funny. It is the reality it is not open to debate. If you would like to keep refuting it ok, reality isn't going change.

You can do some tests at home, take a piece of aluminum foil, about 18 inches square. Lay it on a cement floor it does not matter if the cement is painted or not. Create a 27 volt power source, three nine volt batteries in series.  Connect one terminal of the battery pack to the aluminum foil, place a couch pillow or a bag of sand on the aluminum foil. Connect the other terminal of the batteries, to a multi-meter test lead. Hold the other test lead from the multi meters metal contact tightly in your hand and drop to one knee and note the multi-meter reading. Then drop to two knees, and then lay down on the floor. You will see that electricity flows rather nicely through cement. After all everything is just pure electricity.

Having welded on my back on cement, I am very sure of this phenomena. The welder only outputs 40 volts yet it travels right through the cement and me.

youtu.be/pFtoqm3ELLI



Sincerely,

William McCormick

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
That's remarkable.
You think that the slight conductivity of concrete- which was never disputed- has something to do with showing that Sir Humphrey Davy, the man who first named the electric arc, must have moved forward in time to a point where the words "anode", "cathode" and "rectifier" were invented.

Would you like to explain the link?

Incidentally, it remains the case that marble is a very poor conductor- so much so that it was used as an insulator in standard inductors.
http://www.globalspec.com/specsearch/partspecs?partId={7F369169-AC3F-4EC0-AF72-84203BF93E16}&vid=156785&comp=4155
I have a slab or two of it about the place somewhere- I might get round to measuring the resistivity.


Getting back to the point of the thread, please would you please explain how a tiny amount  (certainly less than 1%) of permanganate turns water into a crystal.

Alternatively, admit that it can't and that you simply didn't remember something correctly.
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
That's remarkable.
You think that the slight conductivity of concrete- which was never disputed- has something to do with showing that Sir Humphrey Davy, the man who first named the electric arc, must have moved forward in time to a point where the words "anode", "cathode" and "rectifier" were invented.

Would you like to explain the link?

Incidentally, it remains the case that marble is a very poor conductor- so much so that it was used as an insulator in standard inductors.
http://www.globalspec.com/specsearch/partspecs?partId={7F369169-AC3F-4EC0-AF72-84203BF93E16}&vid=156785&comp=4155
I have a slab or two of it about the place somewhere- I might get round to measuring the resistivity.


Getting back to the point of the thread, please would you please explain how a tiny amount  (certainly less than 1%) of permanganate turns water into a crystal.

Alternatively, admit that it can't and that you simply didn't remember something correctly.

My point is I stated a reality, that I, they, use in industry marble slabs to reclaim silver. You hang 24 marble slabs depending on the machine from about 4 to 6 inches wide and they hang in the solution about 24 inches deep. These slabs require a large transformer to supply the amperage to carry out the plating. Now do I understand capacitance, ohms/resistance surly. The formula for a capacitor is area of the dielectric in contact with two equal area plates, the resistance of the dielectric, and the thickness of the dielectric. So as I stated and someone without hands on experience refuted, marble is used as a plate in a plating operation. Because it conducts electricity just fine, given enough surface area.

However when I back into a wooden countertop that is covered in plastic mica laminate often known as Formica, Melamine, Wilsonart, the trade names. I suddenly realize my hand is in contact with a live part. That voltage and current goes right through my jeans, and underwear, through, the plastic laminate and wooden structure that it is applied to. Yet I do not feel it through my work boots.

I can touch the hot wire in a home while standing on dry ground in good work boots and socks and feel nothing. I work with electricity on my job and do the above regularly. However if you back into a dielectric, an insulator you might will feel it quick. Even someone else touching you can cause you to feel it suddenly. Fun things we do Haha.

Insulators transmit voltage faster than conductors. Conductors transmit current better, faster than insulators.

Yet in a capacitor, the dielectric conducts both voltage and amperage faster than a conductor would. The reason is that the dielectric in the capacitor has to reach the voltage of the conductor supplying power to one plate (an abundance or particles of electricity), almost instantly or it will detonate. If a shortage of particles of electricity is introduced to a capacitor the capacitor must eject particles of electricity to the power supply terminal that is introducing a shortage of particles of electricity or it will explode. This charging of the capacitor occurs before a conductor can conduct electricity.

Since we know that capacitors are often used to create high amperage outputs where supply power just cannot achieve that kind of amperage, the dielectric can certainly deliver amperage with a couple of square inches of surface area to play with.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
I'm so glad that you understand capacitors.
That means that you understand that they will allow an alternating current to pass, but not direct current.
However, since you need a direct current to electrolytically deposit silver, you must realise that capacitive effects are irrelevant.

It's a bit like saying that you understand geology or ornithology. Very laudable- but irrelevant.


If you can cite details of the system, perhaps I can work out what's really happening because as I said (and proved- with the reference to standard inductors) marble is a pretty good insulator so it's hard to see how it's used as an electrode.

Anyway, in the mean time, could you possibly get back to the topic and explain how a gnat's fart of permanganate holds the water together as a  crystal?
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
I'm so glad that you understand capacitors.
That means that you understand that they will allow an alternating current to pass, but not direct current.
However, since you need a direct current to electrolytically deposit silver, you must realise that capacitive effects are irrelevant.

It's a bit like saying that you understand geology or ornithology. Very laudable- but irrelevant.


If you can cite details of the system, perhaps I can work out what's really happening because as I said (and proved- with the reference to standard inductors) marble is a pretty good insulator so it's hard to see how it's used as an electrode.

Anyway, in the mean time, could you possibly get back to the topic and explain how a gnat's fart of permanganate holds the water together as a  crystal?

I am going to crystalize some potassium permanganate I just cannot get to that task at the moment. Trying to find water that will not cause a dispute or enter contaminants into the experiment.

As far as capacitors go, an air capacitor when rather small or in a vacuum is not seen as an air capacitor, even though there exists an air capacitor, because all the air cannot be evacuated from a chamber in our universe.

In plating operations what can happen is that a capacitor is formed at the surface of one plate, ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode) occurs. That is why you may see light emitted at the surface of one or both the plates in a plating tank. The solution is breaking down, much like a dielectric in a capacitor or air in a light switch breaks down when you open up a circuit. Much like on a clouds surface right before it emits lightning. The surface is over loaded, and reciprocates with a discharge. That is another reason that "scientists" got so screwed up trying to figure out electricity, rather than just sticking to the basics and figuring it out.

Understanding electricity is like rotating your right hand clockwise and your right foot counter clockwise. Not rocket science but just hard to train yourself properly. 

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are you unable to read?
I already pointed out several times that this nonsense
"ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode) occurs."
is not just wrong, but stupidly impossible.

Repeating it proves that you simply don't understand electricity. Wittering on about vacuum and air capacitors doesn't help.
Perhaps rather than repeating your well documented error, you should actually do what I asked and give details of the plating system so I can explain what's really happening in terms of proper science- rather than mumbo jumbo.


Also, you can buy distilled water easily enough.  Even a half- decent mineral water would probably be good enough.

But I don't see how you are going to make progress unless you actually understand the problem.
If you did understand it, you could answer my question.
"Anyway, in the mean time, could you possibly get back to the topic and explain how a gnat's fart of permanganate holds the water together as a  crystal?

As we both agree it only takes a  trace of permanganate to make the mixture so dark that it's nearly black. So, to get something lavender coloured you could only have a tiny trace of permanganate.
How will that tiny trace hold all the water together to make a crystal.

 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1867
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Are you unable to read?

Hi Bored, just a pleasant reminder to avoid ad hominem attacks. I understand your frustration, and have mostly abstained from replying to this particular member. I might recommend the same tactic for the rest of us who understand just how wrong he usually seems to be. Thanks!
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Perhaps  I should clarify that it's not an ad hom attack, it's a valid question.
I have pointed out repeatedly that the idea that arc means "anode rectifier cathode" is nonsensical since it would require that Sir Humphrey Davy travelled in time.
He keeps going on about it.
It's reasonable to ask if that's because he's unable, somehow, to read what I posted.
I am genuinely trying to work out why he keeps ignoring evidence- difficulty with reading would be one possible explanation.
(If I started by asking about the other possibilities that would really look like an ad hom.)
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1867
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Thanks Bored. Sorry if I implied motives you didn't have. Carry on!
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Are you unable to read?
I already pointed out several times that this nonsense
"ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode) occurs."
is not just wrong, but stupidly impossible.

Repeating it proves that you simply don't understand electricity. Wittering on about vacuum and air capacitors doesn't help.
Perhaps rather than repeating your well documented error, you should actually do what I asked and give details of the plating system so I can explain what's really happening in terms of proper science- rather than mumbo jumbo.


Also, you can buy distilled water easily enough.  Even a half- decent mineral water would probably be good enough.

But I don't see how you are going to make progress unless you actually understand the problem.
If you did understand it, you could answer my question.
"Anyway, in the mean time, could you possibly get back to the topic and explain how a gnat's fart of permanganate holds the water together as a  crystal?

As we both agree it only takes a  trace of permanganate to make the mixture so dark that it's nearly black. So, to get something lavender coloured you could only have a tiny trace of permanganate.
How will that tiny trace hold all the water together to make a crystal.

Lightning is ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode). Voltage an abundance of particles of electricity, move from the earth to the storm cloud until the bottom surface of the storm cloud can no longer support the current flowing through the surface of the cloud. The cloud internally is short of particles of electricity, and so is the area above the cloud. The surface of the cloud just like a mercury rectifier becomes a rectifier of current, and does not allow the voltage under the cloud to pass through to the cloud. If it did the cloud would explode with horrific results.

ARC does not flow like an A to B flow of electricity. ARC is an A to B to C flow of electricity. The A to B flow flow of electricity is rather direct and instant. The B to C flow can meander. The reason is that the area that is high in voltage the underside of a storm cloud, has no actual place to send that voltage, it is not part of a circuit rather it is more like an electrochemical detonation. It can go anywhere there is lesser voltage. Which is just about anywhere.

However ARC does not flow in a straight line, like an A to B flow of electricity. It can slowly turn, sharply turn, move upwards, and then downwards. it will bleed off voltage to anything. Where the A to B flow of electricity moves in one direction from an abundance to a shortage created by the power supply. ARC can flow against the flow of particles of electricity from the original power supply because it is a very high voltage created by an overflow of electricity from an original power supply. 

My chemistry teacher one year demonstrated copper sulphate being crystalized i stirred in the copper sulfate. It forms one large perfect crystal. That crystal has to be broken into bits to be useful. Once you break the large crystal the smaller crystals appear much lighter in color.

From the amount of copper sulfate added to the water, which was first boiled, and then kept warm while adding the copper sulfate, the size of the crystal was certainly much, much larger than the jar of copper sulfate that was not even completely used.  What i though really odd is that they copper sulfate hydrate crystal would not mix with the perfectly clear water surrounding it, even after many hours.


Sincerely,

William McCormick
« Last Edit: 30/09/2016 05:33:33 by William McC »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile

Lightning is ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode).

Prove it.
Find a single reference anywhere that backs up your claim- (and explains how Davy time-travelled)

Also, please note that nobody asked about copper sulphate. I asked you to explain how a tiny trace of permanganate could hold water together.
You have not done so.
Why not just admit that you are wrong?
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile

Lightning is ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode).

Prove it.
Find a single reference anywhere that backs up your claim- (and explains how Davy time-travelled)

Also, please note that nobody asked about copper sulphate. I asked you to explain how a tiny trace of permanganate could hold water together.
You have not done so.
Why not just admit that you are wrong?

How do you prove something that is right there, but is not wanted by some to be understood? ARC is something you can just use your own gathered evidence from life experience, and if your observations are sound you will arrive at my conclusions. I was told by the people that have no scientific limitations or misunderstandings that the books will be tainted by law, not science, many years ago. I thought it was perhaps an exaggeration however looking back they were too submissive about it and underestimated what chaos can do. We have already passed the raise it down and lower it up phase of the basics of science, which if I was a gambling man I would have lost it all because I did not think it would have flown.

If you get enough people together you can call the blue sky purple. But then you cannot call potassium permanganate purple anymore, unless you create some more sub matter particles to explain how that could be. The "rainbow illusion particle" perhaps? Great debates could take place, about the rain is it purple rain or potassium permanganate rain?

I get the fact that most do not want to admit that for over 100 years science has been basically destroyed while moments of amazing scientific achievements actually hide that fact. Basically science was more correct over 200 years ago.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"How do you prove something that is right there, but is not wanted by some to be understood?"

that's the problem- it isn't there.
If you were not talking utter nonsense it would be easy for you to show that someone else, somewhere on the internet also refers to " ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode)"

Well, why haven't you?
And how do you explain the fact that Davy was using the word "arc" before anyone had invented the words "rectifier (in the context of electricity)," "anode" and "cathode"?


And, similarly, if this
" Basically science was more correct over 200 years ago. "
is even close to true you should be able to prove it.

Meanwhile, perhaps you could explain who a tiny trace of permanganate holds together a huge amount of water in a crystal.

I keep asking you to explain stuff and you just don't. Why don't you simply admit that it's because you can't?
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
"How do you prove something that is right there, but is not wanted by some to be understood?"

that's the problem- it isn't there.
If you were not talking utter nonsense it would be easy for you to show that someone else, somewhere on the internet also refers to " ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode)"

Well, why haven't you?
And how do you explain the fact that Davy was using the word "arc" before anyone had invented the words "rectifier (in the context of electricity)," "anode" and "cathode"?


And, similarly, if this
" Basically science was more correct over 200 years ago. "
is even close to true you should be able to prove it.

Meanwhile, perhaps you could explain who a tiny trace of permanganate holds together a huge amount of water in a crystal.

I keep asking you to explain stuff and you just don't. Why don't you simply admit that it's because you can't?

As I have stated there is nothing negative about a particle of electricity. It is never attracted to matter or other particles of electricity. It can be pushed to matter or other particles of electricity by an abundance of particles of electricity or by its velocity when it is traveling as ambient radiation x-rays or heat.

So although Benjamin Franklin did correctly label electricity according to the way it flows, and recorded it, colleges decided they knew better. Colleges misunderstood the cathode ray tube, and from their misunderstanding changed the markings on electricity. Twenty years ago colleges were proud of their labeling. Today colleges say "well it is just a convention anyway" rather than expose their misunderstanding of electricity the atom and the universe.

I have a pyrex beaker from Corning coming it should be here tomorrow Sunday. I want to time lapse the crystallization of the potassium permanganate. I have never seen it crystalize I am pretty excited about it.

If you have never seen copper sulphate crystalize you probably would not believe it. I am still at a loss as to how it can separate into copper sulphate hydrate and pure clear water with no blue tint. I might also crystalize a batch of copper sulphate too.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"As I have stated there is nothing negative about a particle of electricity."
Nobody said otherwise here.

Would you care to expand on why you think that you are the only person in the world who knows the "truth"- even though it makes no sense and all the other people who are(according to you) totally wrong are doing things like designing computers -like the one you are using.
How come the stuff they design works if they have no idea what's happening?

Re " I am still at a loss as to how it can separate into copper sulphate hydrate and pure clear water with no blue tint. "
That's easy. It doesn't. The crystals form in a deep blue solution. There's no "pure clear water with no blue tint".
It's just you being wrong again.

More importantly, back at the topic.
perhaps you could explain who a tiny trace of permanganate holds together a huge amount of water in a crystal.


 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
"As I have stated there is nothing negative about a particle of electricity."
Nobody said otherwise here.

Would you care to expand on why you think that you are the only person in the world who knows the "truth"- even though it makes no sense and all the other people who are(according to you) totally wrong are doing things like designing computers -like the one you are using.
How come the stuff they design works if they have no idea what's happening?

Re " I am still at a loss as to how it can separate into copper sulphate hydrate and pure clear water with no blue tint. "
That's easy. It doesn't. The crystals form in a deep blue solution. There's no "pure clear water with no blue tint".
It's just you being wrong again.

More importantly, back at the topic.
perhaps you could explain who a tiny trace of permanganate holds together a huge amount of water in a crystal.

If you agree there is nothing negative about a particle of electricity, then it should not be labeled with a (-) symbol. That labeling makes as much sense as raise it down and lower it up.

Stubborn egotistical colleges cannot repair their errors. Especially after they insulted a dead mans work by saying he could not have known the direction of electricity, and took a guess about the polarity of electricity. When in fact colleges took a guess or purposely mislabeled electricity. Benjamin Franklin created the test in his basement with a wire from his roof during a lightning storm. Using a pointed and flat electrode which shows the direction of electricity. 

You asked how can you make a computer without understanding electricity? You do not even need electricity to make a computer. First you need to understand the computer then electricity, then make the computer. It looks like neither is understood yet. 

As I mentioned after a few years of kids learning in school and calling the sky purple we would believe the sky was purple. That is what has happened with electricity. The problem is that we did not change up to down and down to up, positive to mean negative and negative to mean positive across the board yet. So perhaps we can just fix the labeling on electricity and move on. Then we can fix chemistry and science. Since we live in a universe built solely out of particles of electricity according to my schooling, I would think we should get that in order before doing anything important. Our computers are barely, reliable. I am not saying that they are not complex, and often fun and useful however they are unnecessarily complex in most cases. Unstable in all cases.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
"As I have stated there is nothing negative about a particle of electricity."
Nobody said otherwise here.

Would you care to expand on why you think that you are the only person in the world who knows the "truth"- even though it makes no sense and all the other people who are(according to you) totally wrong are doing things like designing computers -like the one you are using.
How come the stuff they design works if they have no idea what's happening?

Re " I am still at a loss as to how it can separate into copper sulphate hydrate and pure clear water with no blue tint. "
That's easy. It doesn't. The crystals form in a deep blue solution. There's no "pure clear water with no blue tint".
It's just you being wrong again.

More importantly, back at the topic.
perhaps you could explain who a tiny trace of permanganate holds together a huge amount of water in a crystal.

Copper sulphate certainly does crystalize into a solid blue crystal and pure water. When mixed with pure heated water not boiling water, to a point of over saturation which happens with very little copper sulphate added. Then left out over night to cool, it forms an amazing solid one piece blue crystal, in clear un-tinted water. I mixed in the copper sulphate myself it was after school. The next day there was the crystal. Could the teacher have put a blue crystal in the beaker sure, but I doubt it highly. He was a man of science. We so carefully mixed in enough coper sulphate only to the point that the solution would not completely absorb anymore. Using a very tiny spoon to do it one spoon at a time.

This teacher in particular raised one cubic foot of water one degree celsius with one BTU of energy, and refused to agree to the laws of conservation.


Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile


If you agree there is nothing negative about a particle of electricity, then it should not be labeled with a (-) symbol. That labeling makes as much sense as raise it down and lower it up.

Stubborn egotistical colleges cannot repair their errors. Especially after they insulted a dead mans work by saying he could not have known the direction of electricity, and took a guess about the polarity of electricity. When in fact colleges took a guess or purposely mislabeled electricity. Benjamin Franklin created the test in his basement with a wire from his roof during a lightning storm. Using a pointed and flat electrode which shows the direction of electricity. 

You asked how can you make a computer without understanding electricity? You do not even need electricity to make a computer. First you need to understand the computer then electricity, then make the computer. It looks like neither is understood yet. 

As I mentioned after a few years of kids learning in school and calling the sky purple we would believe the sky was purple. That is what has happened with electricity. The problem is that we did not change up to down and down to up, positive to mean negative and negative to mean positive across the board yet. So perhaps we can just fix the labeling on electricity and move on. Then we can fix chemistry and science. Since we live in a universe built solely out of particles of electricity according to my schooling, I would think we should get that in order before doing anything important. Our computers are barely, reliable. I am not saying that they are not complex, and often fun and useful however they are unnecessarily complex in most cases. Unstable in all cases.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 
You seem to have given up any attempt at sense.

perhaps you could explain who a tiny trace of permanganate holds together a huge amount of water in a crystal.


 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length