Ionization

[Eos of the Eons]

Hmm. I just got some hate mail.

From: "Anonymous via Panta Rhei"

Edited by chillzero: 

Removing email address

To: me
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 12:54 PM
Subject: Arrogant/Ignorant/Uneducated Twat

Your website and various forum posts showcase an ignorance

and bias befitting those to whom you associate; redneck

mind****s like Barrett et al.....



Congratulations....your spawn will be proud of you.

I willfully admit ignorance in some areas. However, I at least try to find legitimate sources of information to alleviate that ignorance.

If legitimacy is a bias, then so be it. I'd rather be biased towards facts than stupidity like with these footbaths.

It may be buyer beware out there, but there's nothing wrong with helping consumers become more aware. No?

(not sure where the hatemonger got my email... but they do mention forums, and this is the only forum and thread I've been any where near in weeks )

 

[Paulhoff]

Ionization, Florescent lighting, neon lights, vacuum tubes and CRTs.

Paul



Cyclotrons, the sun

 

[robinson]

(not sure where the hatemonger got my email...

Umm... in your quote of the message recieved you wrote
To:

Edited by Lisa simpson: 

Email address removed.

Uhh... maybe that is your e mail? If so, why would you post it?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

ha ha, yeah... I couldn't reply to the person who emailed me using the gutless anyonymous email route. It won't allow me to reply.

I should delete my email in the posts here. -done

The hatemonger obviously already got my email elsewhere though

Can you delete it in your post, pretty please Robinson?

I can only hope to blame the antihistamines I've been taking this weekend on this silliness. Or maybe I LIKE getting hatemail. Got somebody's hackles up somehow. Enough for them to go to all the work to stay anonymous but get a hold of me to tell me what they think of what apparently got their hackles up.

*sheepish grin*

 

[robinson]

I didn't see your response until now, and I can't edit, but Lisa did it for me. Next time I will leave out the information when pointing this out, I obviously wasn't thinking that clear as well. Apologies for the problem.

(Homer Simpson voice) Doh!

 

[robinson]

Now, about ionization ... I find ions (or is it Ions?) fascinating. Especially Hydrogen.

As to the salt water ions issue, adding salt to water creates potential chemical energy, as in salt water has chemical energy by nature. Simply placing two different metals in salt water makes a battery. This was the first battery Volta used I believe.

 

[Madalch]

As to the salt water ions issue, adding salt to water creates potential chemical energy, as in salt water has chemical energy by nature.

Not really. Everything has some potential energy. Salt water actually has a lower chemical potential than unmixed salt and pure water. Adding salt to water thus represents a loss of energy- if you wanted to separate the two again, you'd have to put energy in.

 

[anor277]

Electrostatic attractions can hardly be considered strong chemical bonds.

[Another derailment..]
Even if you disagree with the notion that ionic bonds are strong chemical bonds (a notion that I stand by) you still have to consider the formation of new substances in the dissolution reaction. It seems a few people here are parroting what they learnt by rote rather than addressing the argument.

[Rerailment] Regarding Volta's battery, the addition of ions (charge bearers) to the solution certainly facilitates the transfer of electrons between two different metals. Addition of a salt also facilitates the transfer of electrons in the same metal, i.e. in the corrosion of iron. (The other day I read that some 1% of modern GNP's are spent on the prevention of rust - that's a staggering sum.)

 

[Eos of the Eons]

http://skeptix.ca/articles/medicine/index.html

Okay, a plug for the Central Alberta "SKEPTIX" site, and my article.



Once the discussion area is more set up, we welcome comments and clarifications. For now, you can post them here instead I guess...

 

[Madalch]

[Another derailment..]
Even if you disagree with the notion that ionic bonds are strong chemical bonds (a notion that I stand by) you still have to consider the formation of new substances in the dissolution reaction.

I wouldn't consider an electrostatic attraction to be a bond at all, actually. You say they should be considered strong chemical bonds- strong compared to what? Covalent bonds? Not a chance. They're stronger than hydrogen bonds, sure, but that's hardly considered a real chemical bond by anyone.

 

[anor277]

I wouldn't consider an electrostatic attraction to be a bond at all, actually. You say they should be considered strong chemical bonds- strong compared to what? Covalent bonds? Not a chance. They're stronger than hydrogen bonds, sure, but that's hardly considered a real chemical bond by anyone.

Whatever you may believe, ionic bonding is part of the "bond triangle" comprising ionic, metallic, and covalent bonding that we learn in introductory chemistry. Sure, it is non-directional; sure it is weaker than strongly directional covalent bonds (from memory lattice enthalpies of common ions may be 25-30/40% of common covalent bond energies - and I don't know if this is the best comparison of bond strength that we may use). Nevertheless, ionic bonding does result in a distinct class of chemical compounds whose properties are explained by that ionic bond. Upon dissolution in water these "strong" ionic bonds are disrupted and new substances form; which is why I regard said dissolution as an example of chemical chamge. You are equivocating unnecessarily.

 

[JJM]

Whatever you may believe, ... {snip}

This is not about beliefs. Beliefs are what one maintains in the absence of facts. The fact is- you need to revise your understanding of elementary chemistry.

 

[JJM]

And it is very poor language if used in the latter sense. If I saw it in the paper I was reviewing, I would recommend the author to speak more precisely. {snip}

I can only hope you won't review any of my papers on ionization, or UV-Vis spectroscopy ...

You do remember your (equally) inefectual bluster about spectroscopy, no?

 

[anor277]

This is not about beliefs. Beliefs are what one maintains in the absence of facts. The fact is- you need to revise your understanding of elementary chemistry.

Evasion noted. You have not addressed my argument, and I have arguably made one, in any respect other than to make an ad hominem. If you cannot respond to reasoned criticism with reasoned argument, then don't bother making a response.

 

[JJM]

Evasion noted. You have not addressed my argument, and I have arguably made one, in any respect other than to make an ad hominem. If you cannot respond to reasoned criticism with reasoned argument, then don't bother making a response.

I Repeat:

What part of "I can't provide a lesson in this format" don't you understand? Sorry, maybe someone else can.

In my defense- when I told you that dissolving a salt is a physical (not chemical) process, if you had any scientific sophistication you would have done a Homer Simpson: D'oh. Failing that- you are beyond my help, here. And, I have no plans to teach introductory chemistry any time in the near future.

You may, arguably, argue on ...

 

[Madalch]

Whatever you may believe, ionic bonding is part of the "bond triangle" comprising ionic, metallic, and covalent bonding that we learn in introductory chemistry.

It's referred to as a bond in introductory chemistry, but seldom after that.

Nevertheless, ionic bonding does result in a distinct class of chemical compounds whose properties are explained by that ionic bond. Upon dissolution in water these "strong" ionic bonds are disrupted and new substances form; which is why I regard said dissolution as an example of chemical change.

But you could say the same thing about hydrogen bonds, and nobody would say that dissolving sugar in water, or boiling ethanol are chemical changes.

Take an ionic compound like copper(II) sulphate pentahydrate. If you dissolve it in water, you're not hydrating the copper ions or the sulphate ions much more than they were in the solid form (the copper stays as [Cu(H2O)4]2+, and the sulphate has one water attached to it in the solid form). Do you consider this to be a chemical change? If not, how is this so different from dissolving an unhydrated salt?

You are equivocating unnecessarily.

The whole argument is unnecessary, really. If I'm teaching my students the difference between physical and chemical changes, I'll call dissolution (of covalent or ionic compounds) a physical change. If I'm doing equilibrium or thermodynamics, I treat chemical and physical changes the same anyway.

 

[JJM]

It's referred to as a bond in introductory chemistry, but seldom after that.

Well, there's that.

But you could say the same thing about hydrogen bonds, and nobody would say that dissolving sugar in water, or boiling ethanol are chemical changes.

I have been waiting for that coin to drop.

Take an ionic compound like copper(II) sulphate pentahydrate. If you dissolve it in water, you're not hydrating the copper ions or the sulphate ions much more than they were in the solid form (the copper stays as [Cu(H2O)4]2+, and the sulphate has one water attached to it in the solid form). Do you consider this to be a chemical change? If not, how is this so different from dissolving an unhydrated salt?

It is not fair to confuse/confront them with facts.

The whole argument is unnecessary, really. If I'm teaching my students the difference between physical and chemical changes, I'll call dissolution (of covalent or ionic compounds) a physical change. If I'm doing equilibrium or thermodynamics, I treat chemical and physical changes the same anyway.

I told them not to engage in philosophy.

 

[pgwenthold]

I can only hope you won't review any of my papers on ionization, or UV-Vis spectroscopy ...

You do remember your (equally) inefectual bluster about spectroscopy, no?

You mean the one where you mistakingly asserted that scientists mention every little bump in a spectrum, even those that have reletive intensities below 1%?

Yeah, I remember that. And time hasn't made that claim any less clueless.

 

[JJM]

You mean the one where you mistakingly asserted that scientists mention every little bump in a spectrum, even those that have reletive [sic] intensities below 1%?

Yeah, I remember that. And time hasn't made that claim any less clueless.

Yes, that is it. I thought you went away because you were embarrassed. I guess you didn't learn anything, after all. Go back and look at Rolfe's explanation. I don't have the patience to repeat it here. Hint: an absorption (A) of 0.65 is not below 1%. One would have to be an ignoramus to think otherwise. I think we have established that for you.

I was willing to think you just made a mistake. Your tenacity to your ignorance suggests otherwise, you seem to be a deliberate fool.

 

[robinson]

Ive always been fascinated by H⁺. The idea that an atom, or in this case, a hydrogen ion, is simply a proton, seems utterly strange.