[Bored chemist]

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?

[William McC (OP)]

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

 

[Bored chemist]

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.

[chiralSPO]

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!

[Bored chemist]

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.)

[chiralSPO]

Thanks Bored. Sorry if I implied motives you didn't have. Carry on!

[William McC (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

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?

[William McC (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

"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?

[William McC (OP)]

"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

[Bored chemist]

"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.

[William McC (OP)]

"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

 

[William McC (OP)]

"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

[Bored chemist]

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.

[William McC (OP)]

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.

I was surprised at how little copper sulfate it took to oversaturate the solution. And I was even more surprised by the huge crystal I saw the next morning in class when I went to examine the experiment. So I am keeping an open mind about the potassium permanganate. I expect to see a purple crystal in pristine water. That when broken up will produce lavender crystals.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[Bored chemist]

I was surprised at how little copper sulfate it took to oversaturate the solution. And I was even more surprised by the huge crystal I saw the next morning in class when I went to examine the experiment. So I am keeping an open mind about the potassium permanganate. I expect to see a purple crystal in pristine water. That when broken up will produce lavender crystals.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

As I said, reality and this thread have clearly parted company.
You seem to say that it takes a little copper sulphate to make a saturated solution- but you get a lot of copper sulphate back from that solution.
Where does the additional copper sulphate come from? Do unicorns bring it?
Also re "I expect to see a purple crystal in pristine water."
How?
If I put a little permanganate into water I get a very dark solution. I can then add more to get a saturated solution. I can even look up in tables like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_table
how much permanganate will dissolve.  Near room temperature it will be about 4 or 5 %.

If I leave it and let the water evaporate (or if I started with a hot solution and let it cool) then I will end up with fresh crystals of permanganate.
And they will be in water.
And-if by some magic- that water was "pristine"- rather than nearly black with permanganate then they would dissolve.

There's a massive issue with your idea of "pristine"  or  "pure clear water with no blue tint" (for copper sulphate).

How does it know which to do?
How does the water know that- because the crystals are forming- the water should be pure, but when they are dissolving it should dissolve 4% or so?

Are you invoking some insane suggestion that the water has a memory- or that it mystically knows whether you are making crystals or making a solution?
In particular, how do the bits of the solution on the other side of the beaker "know"? What communication method could they use?

So, as I said, you have completely left reality behind in an attempt to avoid admitting that you were simply mistaken.
Meanwhile, back at the topic,
Perhaps you could explain who a tiny trace of permanganate holds together a huge amount of water in a crystal.

(BTW, powdered potassium permanganate is practically black. I used to make lots of it when I was a kid. I imagine you can guess why but it's not a topic to discuss here since it's neither relevant, nor safe)

[William McC (OP)]

I was surprised at how little copper sulfate it took to oversaturate the solution. And I was even more surprised by the huge crystal I saw the next morning in class when I went to examine the experiment. So I am keeping an open mind about the potassium permanganate. I expect to see a purple crystal in pristine water. That when broken up will produce lavender crystals.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

As I said, reality and this thread have clearly parted company.
You seem to say that it takes a little copper sulphate to make a saturated solution- but you get a lot of copper sulphate back from that solution.
Where does the additional copper sulphate come from? Do unicorns bring it?
Also re "I expect to see a purple crystal in pristine water."
How?
If I put a little permanganate into water I get a very dark solution. I can then add more to get a saturated solution. I can even look up in tables like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_table
how much permanganate will dissolve.  Near room temperature it will be about 4 or 5 %.

If I leave it and let the water evaporate (or if I started with a hot solution and let it cool) then I will end up with fresh crystals of permanganate.
And they will be in water.
And-if by some magic- that water was "pristine"- rather than nearly black with permanganate then they would dissolve.

There's a massive issue with your idea of "pristine"  or  "pure clear water with no blue tint" (for copper sulphate).

How does it know which to do?
How does the water know that- because the crystals are forming- the water should be pure, but when they are dissolving it should dissolve 4% or so?

Are you invoking some insane suggestion that the water has a memory- or that it mystically knows whether you are making crystals or making a solution?
In particular, how do the bits of the solution on the other side of the beaker "know"? What communication method could they use?

So, as I said, you have completely left reality behind in an attempt to avoid admitting that you were simply mistaken.
Meanwhile, back at the topic,
Perhaps you could explain who a tiny trace of permanganate holds together a huge amount of water in a crystal.

(BTW, powdered potassium permanganate is practically black. I used to make lots of it when I was a kid. I imagine you can guess why but it's not a topic to discuss here since it's neither relevant, nor safe)

I agree with your logic entirely, about the pristine water, and blue crystal sitting in the pristine water. It made no sense to me either. However the teacher said that when crystallization occurs, with more than enough water present, that the hydrate wishes no more water and stays apart from the water. If you crush it up it will then mix with water again. However the initial reaction leaves the huge single crystal and pristine water not wanting any part of one another. I know the teacher left the classroom windows open the heat off in the fall and asked the janitor to also do the same. I believe he was going for that 40 degree Fahrenheit maximum density of water, and a slow cool over night to cause crystallization. It was cold in the classroom the next morning.

I march to the trumpets that never sound retreat, so I stay on something until I have proof for myself. I am waiting patiently for my beakers to come. The effect and mental picture of the blue crystal in pristine water inside that clear beaker, makes for such memory. I cannot get that picture out of my mind, I am actually very excited about this experiment. I might do the copper sulphate first, and then experiment with the potassium permanganate second. The camera I wish to use is getting old and the lithium batteries are getting old too. So I do not know if I will be able to capture it on time lapse. But I will try. Worse comes to worse I will get some pictures.

I was looking at time lapse apps for the iPhone 7 just incase, but I am not sure if they will do what I wish to do. I am thinking a picture every 2 minutes. I am going to look into those apps now.

My teacher took great care in the temperature of the solution, the amount of copper sulphate mixed into the solution. He knew it would take over night to crystalize. He said it had to be left alone and not bothered, over night. As soon as we finished mixing it, he had us all back away from it and he locked up the classroom.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[Bored chemist]

Never mind what you think you remember about what the teacher said. Put some copper sulphate in water and try it.
Or just look on the web where a zillion people have done the experiment.
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-grow-great-crystals/step3/Growing-the-Copper-sulphate-crystal/

Don't you understand that when something is logically impossible, it doesn't happen- so you must have got something wrong?