Ionization

[Madalch]

Chlorine will bubble from one electrode, and one electrode will have rust form on the iron. That's about it.

No- the formation of chlorine gas and the formation of rust are both oxidations. You'll get oxidation at the anode (and iron is far more easily oxidized than chloride ion, so you won't be getting much chlorine), and reduction at the cathode (where water will be reduced to hydrogen gas and hydroxide ion, which will diffuse over to the other electrode and precipitate out with the iron ions which are being formed there).

 

[Eos of the Eons]

No- the formation of chlorine gas and the formation of rust are both oxidations. You'll get oxidation at the anode (and iron is far more easily oxidized than chloride ion, so you won't be getting much chlorine), and reduction at the cathode (where water will be reduced to hydrogen gas and hydroxide ion, which will diffuse over to the other electrode and precipitate out with the iron ions which are being formed there).

Yes! I'm totally stealing this too. Giving you credit, of course, thank you

 

[Madalch]

We have water and iron, and an electrical charge enhanced by the ionization of the salt. Does this enhanced electrical charge speed up the rusting of the iron? By how much? Or is that all? Why bother with the salt, is there an action of the Na or Cl on the iron electrode?

The ions form the salt make the solution electrically conductive- for current to flow, charge has to move, and this has to be in the form of ions (electrons can't swim). Without the salt, there aren't enough ions for the charge to flow, and without current, this reaction won't occur.

The overall reaction won't occur without the current- it's thermodynamically unfavorable (water's not strong enough of an oxidizing agent to react with iron). By applying an electric current, we're doing work on the reaction and forcing it to occur.

 

[JJM]

{snip} In footbaths (the topic I'm currently debunking), we have iron electrodes in a machine that are hooked up to a low voltage/amperage AC to DC transformer.

There are many confused statements above. Let's stick with this specific example. You are right that it is flummery. The simple test is to run the footbath without the feet in it. The rusty color still develops since all they are doing is rusting the iron electrodes.

When the machine is turned on, you get rust plus hydrogen and chlori[n]e gas.

So, I assume you are asked to add salty water, and what you say is exactly what the footbath does. And that is all it does.

The woos claim the machines are ionizing the water to draw toxins from you.

It is hard to prove a negative; but, these claims are ridiculous.

This claim is basically saying ionization creates a magnetic field to pull metals out of you. I'm pretty sure that is not true... why would it create a magnetic field?

It would not, I am a chemist (not a physicist) but there are instruments that can test that claim.

What is actually happening is elecrolysis, that's all I know for sure. You have salt water, an electrical current, and iron electrodes.

You are correct.

Is there any ionization? If there was, what would the actual result be?

Yes, and the result is that the iron becomes rust.

I'm thinking there would just be an exchange of bonds between the salt, and that's it. Am I even close?

I am not sure what you mean here. I am afraid that one who wants to understand this needs to have a better understanding of chemistry than I can give in a thread (we always say we can't talk without a chalkboard nearby). I think it is enough to say that it is an electrochemical reaction that has no physiological effect.

 

[The Man]

A metal by definition easily gives up electrons to from positive ions (oxidation). When placed in a salt solution and a DC current is applied this process is greatly accelerated. It is often used to simulate years of exposure, in a short period of time, when test different protective coatings.

 

[blutoski]

Okay, I understand that atoms can lose an electron to become positively charge, or gain an electron to become negatively charges. That is ionization.

Um, so, uh...

Why would anyone do this? What does ionization do to an atom? What does it take to ionize anything? How long does ionization last?

Every website I go to explains the process, but not the result. So, you have this ionized solution... then what?

Of course, the woo sites say a magnetic field is created, or that an ionized solution can suck toxins outta you, but uh, yeah, sure it can.

So, I need a real education on this. Please help,

Eos

I'm only a biology major, so not the best authority on this type of question. But until a chem major chimes in, I'll do what I can to clear this up. I had the same confusion when I did first year chem. Related topics are the table of elements and also radicals. This is easier to grasp if you're looking at a picture of the periodic table of elements.

The key to understanding what causes an atom or molecule to become an ion is to get a handle on two principles: the valence shell and electronegativity.

As you already know, atoms have a specific number of protons. This determines their atomic number. An atom with 1 proton is neutral with 1 electron.

But when you mix atoms together, they may be more stable either donating or adopting an electron, even if it means they end up a charged ion.

For example, hydrogen loves to donate one electon to become H+, and chlorine loves to adopt an ion to become Cl-.



The underlying reason for this is the atom's valence shell. 'valence' refers to the fact that it's the outermost 'shell' which is the nickname for a family of electron orbitals around the nucleus.

The shells come in a predictable, known, pattern: 1s, 2s+2p, 3s+3p, and upward. S shells can have max 2 electrons, p shells can have max 6.

The next thing to recognize is that atoms are most stable when they have the 'correct' number of electrons in their outer shell. So, hydrogen finds itself with one electron in a 1s shell that prefers two. What to do? It can 'go down' to having no outer shell by ejecting the electron (H+), which would solve the problem of having an unstable shell by eliminating it, or it could adopt an electron (H-) and have a full outer shell.

As you're probably familiar seeing, hydrogen is happy to donate an electron to become H+.

The next example is helium, with two protons that fill its valence shell quite nicely. Helium is not happy to donate or adopt an electron, and there you've got your inert noble gas.

The next example is Fluorine, which has 9 protons. This means its 1s contains the first two electrons, 2s the next two, leaving five for the 2p shell that wants six. It's valence shell is one electron short. Not surprisingly, Fluorine is quite happy to adopt an electron and become F-.



The details get more complicated when dealing with molecules, but the principle is the same. You just have to be aware that when atoms bind to form molecules, such as H2O, they form new and different kinds of electron orbitals, but they still retain some of the influence from the nearest atom's nucleus. So, when HOH 'breaks up', it's not surprising to see that the hydrogen atom leaves an electron behind to form H+ + HO-. The oxygen nucleus wants a couple extra electrons, and it has been given one completely from the departed hydrogen nucleus, and is 'borrowing' one from its bound neighbour hydrogen nucleus. They're not electrically neutral, but they're happy and stable little ions this way because their outer shells are as close to being complete as they can be.



A molecule can also become an ion by being bombarded with a subatomic particle or high energy electromagnetic wave (well, photon). This is the origin of the term 'ionizing radiation'. Usually, the energy is of a wavelength and intensity to cause an electron to leave the nucleus.




So that's the background. I'm sure you'll have some clarifying questions. I'm off to the in-laws for thanksgiving, so will have to look back tomorrow.





Regarding how to apply this to healthfraud:

I'm not sure that the expression 'ionized solution' has any real meaning. I'd have to see how it's being used. All aqueous solutions contain ions. (That's what pH is measuring: the inverse log of H+ ion concentration.)

If they think ions are good for them, they can go drink some concentrated hydrochloric acid, or stand in front of an X-ray machine. That'll ionize the **** out of them in a milionth of a second.

 

[Schneibster]

No- the formation of chlorine gas and the formation of rust are both oxidations. You'll get oxidation at the anode (and iron is far more easily oxidized than chloride ion, so you won't be getting much chlorine), and reduction at the cathode (where water will be reduced to hydrogen gas and hydroxide ion, which will diffuse over to the other electrode and precipitate out with the iron ions which are being formed there).

I said you'd get oxygen at one, and chlorine at one- and I constructed that sentence very carefully. I carefully and specifically did not say that they wouldn't be the SAME one.

 

[Schneibster]

If you want to debunk it, I'd say the osmosis claim works; as far as any interaction with feet, that's another good place. Finally, the claim of magnetism associated with electrolysis is yet another good point of attack.

Have fun. 8)

 

[Eos of the Eons]

By George, I think I've got it! Madalch is allowing me to quote him, and I've worked a few of his quotes into my end result. I'll link the actual article once it is posted online.



This process happened a lot quicker than I thougt it was going to, and I've got my article ready to email off now.


Thank you everyone! Please do continue to discuss, as everything is helping me to learn what I should have remembered from chemisty eons ago. How quickly one starts to foget after 10 years hey? Oy.

A million thank you's again,

-Eos

 

[JJM]

It has been a looong time since I taught electrochemistry. I think I made a mistake- the products from the foot-bath will be hydrogen gas (H2) and iron oxide (rust), not chlorine gas (Cl2).

 

[fuelair]

By George, I think I've got it! Madalch is allowing me to quote him, and I've worked a few of his quotes into my end result. I'll link the actual article once it is posted online.



This process happened a lot quicker than I thougt it was going to, and I've got my article ready to email off now.


Thank you everyone! Please do continue to discuss, as everything is helping me to learn what I should have remembered from chemisty eons ago. How quickly one starts to foget after 10 years hey? Oy.

A million thank you's again,

-Eos

It is fairly easy to forget things you do not use a lot, if at all. I suspect we all do it, I know I do! Worry not lest ye be worried!!

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm sad to see this thread being ultimately about electrochemistry It's a lot more fun to talk about all the concepts of ionization.

A couple of issues that should be clarified, however. Putting a salt in water does not cause ionization. The ions are already present in the salt (that's what makes it a salt). The ions separate in a sufficiently polar solution (sufficient enough to overcome the lattice free energy - i.e. the energy of organizing the ions in the solid state)

Second, in general ions in solution do not create a magnetic field because their motions are isotropic (i.e. they are moving in all directions) and there are both positive and negative ions moving, so there is no net magnetic field. Moving unipolar ions do indeed create a magnetic field (just like a current does), but you are only going to find that in specific cases, .e.g. mass spectrometry. They will, however, respond to a magnetic field, as well as responding to electric fields.

You've got to be very careful when talking about oxidation and reduction like here. Ionization is probably not a good description, because most of the time charge is traded, as opposed to created, which is more what people mean when they talk about ionization (however, you can talk about ionization that occurs within a redox process - as I said, be careful on it, though)).

It was mentioned earlier about using alpha emission from Po to do ionization. That's a fairly common approach, true, but in the end, the tried and true most basic method of ionization is electrical discharge. Lightening is a great source of ions. I've always wondered about the ion chemistry following a lightening bolt. Undoubtedly (given the humidity) you will hit hydrated protons pretty quickly (that's what you get when you ionize moist air) but their ultimate fate is something I haven't sorted out yet.

 

[Madalch]

A couple of issues that should be clarified, however. Putting a salt in water does not cause ionization. The ions are already present in the salt (that's what makes it a salt).

Ionization can refer to the formation of ions from atoms (such as when sodium reacts with chlorine), but it can also refer to the formation of aqueous ions from solutes (thus, the "percent ionization" of a weak acid). So it is entirely correct to take about ionization occuring when salts dissolve in water.

 

[pgwenthold]

Ionization can refer to the formation of ions from atoms (such as when sodium reacts with chlorine), but it can also refer to the formation of aqueous ions from solutes (thus, the "percent ionization" of a weak acid). So it is entirely correct to take about ionization occuring when salts dissolve in water.

But a weak acid is not a salt. That is very much ionization, as the covalently bonded HA solute dissociates into H+ and A-. Solid sodium chloride, however, is already completely ionized before dissolution.

My statement was absolutely correct, with no caveats. Putting a salt in water does NOT cause ionization.

 

[anor277]

Ionization can refer to the formation of ions from atoms (such as when sodium reacts with chlorine), but it can also refer to the formation of aqueous ions from solutes (thus, the "percent ionization" of a weak acid). So it is entirely correct to take about ionization occuring when salts dissolve in water.

Just to put in my two cents, ionization is probably the incorrect term to use when an ionic solid is dissolved. As pgwenthold remarked, the solid was already "ionized". The dissolution of an ionic solid, say NaCl in water, is a chemical reaction. The lattice enthalpy holding together the electrostatically charged Na⁺ and Cl^- in the solid is just about compensated by the formation of Na⁺_(aq) and Cl^-_(aq) in water. The (aq) subscript represents the "aquated" ion, an isolated Na⁺ ion surrounded by a few water molecules. The energy derived in the chemical reaction, the solvation, is just about enough to balance the energy used in breaking up the solid into discrete ions. Hence the dissolution of NaCl is only very slightly endothermic.

 

[JJM]

I said you'd get oxygen at one, and chlorine at one- and I constructed that sentence very carefully. I carefully and specifically did not say that they wouldn't be the SAME one.

No, see comment #30.

If you want to debunk it, I'd say the osmosis claim works; as far as any interaction with feet, that's another good place. Finally, the claim of magnetism associated with electrolysis is yet another good point of attack.

Have fun. 8)

Osmosis is not involved.

 

[JJM]

But a weak acid is not a salt.

Many certainly are, e.g., ammonium chloride.

That is very much ionization, as the covalently bonded HA solute dissociates into H+ and A-. Solid sodium chloride, however, is already completely ionized before dissolution. {snip}

There is some confusion here about the term "ionization." We sometimes use it to describe loss or addition of an electron, sometimes to describe the separation of ions in solution.

 

[JJM]

{snip} A couple of issues that should be clarified, however. Putting a salt in water does not cause ionization.

See my last comment.

{snip} You've got to be very careful when talking about oxidation and reduction like here. Ionization is probably not a good description, because most of the time charge is traded, as opposed to created, which is more what people mean when they talk about ionization {snip}

No, you really need to study introductory chemistry, I can't provide a lesson in this format.

It was mentioned earlier about using alpha emission from Po to do ionization. That's a fairly common approach, true, but in the end, the tried and true most basic method of ionization is electrical discharge. {snip}

More confusion.

 

[Badger]

Just a side note, as it's been a long time since I took biology and chemistry, but don't forget that we're basically big bags of aqueous buffered ions in exquisite balance that is difficult to alter. Sticking ones appendages in salty water with a bit of an electric current in it will hardly do anything to the balance of or types of elements and compounds in one's body.

 

[Schneibster]

Osmosis is not involved.

I know that. Osmosis is claimed by supporters of the technique.