What does it mean for somthing to become ionized?

Discussion in 'Chemistry' started by skaught, Dec 1, 2008.

  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Go back and re-read my posts, specifically the post where I first talked about batteries, and specifically the part where I discussed/mentioned batteries loosing their charge.

    Not only that, but take the time to work through, and try and understand the post where I illustrated the chemistry of a lead acid battery.

    Define system. I mean, seriously, here we get back to what I was saying about rechargeable batteries. In rechargeable batteries, you are putting 'new' electrons into the battery, but if what you seem to be saying was correct, then rechargeable batteries are a physical impossibility.

    Right... So now you're claiming omnipotence?

    No, I did that in my first post on this thread, where I mentioned that Ionization was the addition or removal of electrons to or from an atom to form a full octet, and pointed out that this could be acheived by a number of means, including purely mechanical ones.

    Something which I said right from the start.

    Cathode rays, Beta Radiation, scanning electron microscopes, the simple fact that I can turn my TV on.

    No need to be rude. And you are in no position to judge my personal qualities.

    Beta Radiation, Cathode rays, white dwarf stars, where electrons can exist as a degenerate gas, cosmic rays - there's free, unbound electrons zipping through space, F-Centers, where you have a missing aninon in an crystalographic lattice which is replaced by one or more electrons (depending on the charge of the missing anion). Do I need to go on?

    Right...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    lot's of dialogue

    within their own system.... leakage........normal...... what is the point?

    All you are sharing is that energy (em) can be held upon mass. (relativity buster)

    chemistry does not address the energy upon the mass, only the process of the change but fail to address the catalyst or the state of the energy.

    ie... the em potential of each atom. Chemistry does not share how the mass holds energy only that a structure has energy that is measured in free e's

    but in order for any mass to combine em must be added to create the catalyst releasing the energy upon the 'e'....... that is what you are missing.

    The electron is not the energy but the em upon the mass is.

    the 'circuit' (system) creates a potential difference (electromagnetic)

    or if you want to get technical 'weigh' the difference of a charged battery and an uncharged one.

    If you do and you will also be providing evidence that energy has mass.

    Meaning in your idea the rechargable battery is being refilled with electrons but that is not what is happening, the mass is having the potential difference being imposed to return the mass back to the initial 'charged' state

    no such thing!

    Einstein nor Jesus was omnipotent, they just observed more material evidence and shared what they observe and experienced for others to comprehend.

    Why would you write that question?


    and in all cases a potential difference is imposed based on electromagnetic usage; no matter how... whether spinning magnets or diamtomic elements in chemistry... all that energy held upon mass is electromagnetic or a caused potential difference from electromagnetic usage.... not sometimes but everytime!


    from the sun offering light for life's evolution, to the Hoover dam... every line item of energy is of em upon mass in one form or another ie....not even one atoms combines with another without em, nor can one electron be isolated without some form or em



    And in all these examples you proved the above statement


    and now you can see how large bodies entangle more mass

    i.e.... from a star if that electron is passed thru space based on the energy upon it (light) and that becomes the catalyst to a reaction and binds that electron (energy state) to the distant object (mass) now you can see how gravity is actually based on energy as that potential between the far mass and the sun will be maintained until the energy is released


    Or think in the lines of a particle accellerator; they use energy to strip the electron from hydrogen and then send the proton around in the accellerator.

    When that accellerator is shut off, are the protons just stopped and floating around or do they return to hydrogen? now go look up to see if they have to re-vacuate the accellerator when they shut it down. The point is, that no electron is free of mass or its origin without an energy imposition for momentum or exchange. Once you stop the potential difference the isolation will recombine based on the initial entangled state.


    ie... stop the earth from moving; what will happen? What that shares in the earth is not just falling but in continuous exhange with the sun.

    In fact, this polarized ionization cause by the interrelation of exchanges back and forth is why the moon faces the earth in one position. It is also why the mass curve in the milky-way does not follow Newtonian physics and dark matter/energy was created. They fail to address the constant exchanges between the large bodies close to each other.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    You've obviously lost track of your own arguments.

    In saying this you plainly demonstrate that not only do you not understand even introductory chemistry, but that you also have no concept of what the schroedinger wave equation actually means.

    Wrong.

    I'm not missing anything, the person involved in this conversation lacking in understanding is you, not me.

    this sentence is nonsensical.

    No it doesn't, the potential difference is intrinsic to the redox reaction, and the redox potential.

    Essentially, it's related to the ionization potential of the atoms.

    There will be no discernable difference in mass.

    Wrong.

    Wrong. In my idea, which, incidentally, IS the mainstream model that rechargeable batteries are based upon, the applied voltage, to recharge the battery, if sufficient, forces the reverse reaction to occur, regenerating the reactants from the products, by providing a sufficient electron sink on one side of the cell, and a sufficient electron source on the other.

    Because the way your post is written implies omnipotence on your part.


    Inaccurate.



    Wrong.


    Nonsensical.

    Nonsensical, and wrong.


    Inaccurate.

    If you're talking about the confining magnets and such b eing turned off, then the beam would travel in a straight (ish) line and collide with the accelerator wall, and probably strip electrons from the metal atoms in the wall of the accelerator.


    They have to work at keeping it evacuated.


    Irrelevant.

    Wrong, it has nothing to do with it.

    You clearly don't even understand alternative theories. EU theories focus on the influence of Magnetic and electric forces on the large scale structure of the universe.

    It has nothing to do with the mass of the current carrying charges, a point which some eu proponents miss, but has to do with the interactions of currents, and em forces.

    Nonsensical.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    ionization is the atoms with free electrons, the more free electrons the more ionization is
     
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    No.

    Ionization is the process of loosing or gaining electrons.
    The more positive, or more negative the oxidation number, the stronger the ionization.
     
  9. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    ok fine...I meant ionized, how much ionized atom is...k
     
  10. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    It's still not really about free electrons. Not even really sure what you're trying to say here, because free electrons are those not bound to an atom.

    Are you saying that in any volume of gas/plasma, the higher the number of free electrons in that state, the higher the average ionization of the atoms/molecules in that state?

    'Cause if that's the case, that actually makes sense, and is accurate, but is not a good indicator of ionization in general, because ionizatoin occurs without 'free' electrons.
     
  11. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    yes trippy that is what I am saying.
     
  12. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    sorry trippy hippy it seems you are lost

    now you are way out of wack..... as schroadinger has no electron

    perhaps look at what university porfessors share
    or to be even more schroadingerish .......... how about his work on entropy

    trippy hippy.................... it seems perhaps you should be reading and learning rather than writting


    point is that electrons are portions of energy/mass....not units of mass. ie.... what does E=mc2 mean other than to share that mass is energy affixed in time....... to such and extent that when mass is put through fission and fussion, there are no electrons but light............em

    problem is you still like the 'water, earth, fire and air' kind of thinking.................


    the rest of your post is uneducated
     
  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Whatever.

    Anyone who can decipher the relevant points from your gibberish will see that you're wrong.

    As for the rest of your nonsense, you're clearly out of points because you've resorted to the same immature insults that you always do.

    What next, more abusive PM's telling me to go lay by my dish? Calling me a punk because i've demonstrated you're wrong (again)?
     
  14. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    Nope, you're doing what is best, moving on!
     
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    :roflmao:

    No, you just haven't posted anything coherrent enough to respond to in a meaningful manner.
     
  16. Forceman May the force be with you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    206
    I find it intriguing how threads on one topic evolve into another. Apparently Fraggle Rocker and Trippy KNOW what they're talking about. So please, no one try to counter their explanations concerning the question that was asked by Skaught in the beginning, "What does it mean to become ionized?" That question was answered very thoroughly by Fraggle and Trippy. We don't need people like Bishadi confusing everyone because his chemistry is off weak.

    P.s. Misa propose we immediately give emergency powers to the chancellor!
     
  17. Forceman May the force be with you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    206
    Oh, and Einstein stated that mass could be converted into energy and vice versa. Fission is achieved throught the weak force, in which the gluons and other weak force particles try to stablize the atom and turn into energy. In fusion of hydrogen to helium, four hydrogen nuclei (or four protons) collide. The result is the emission of two electrons and two neurtrinos leaving the collided result with two protons and two neutrons (helium). I agree with Trippy that to compensate for your lack of accuracy in physical science you blab out insults. You called him an Aristotelian. You know not the definition Bishadi.

    P.s. I find your lack of faith disturbing.
     
  18. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Forceman:

    I can't work out if your being satirical, sarcastic, or genuine (I strongly doubt the third option).

    Are you seriously suggesting that those of us that have provable knowledge should remain silence and allow ignorance to reign?

    Would you rather I hadn't answered (or tried to) your question about Benzene polymers?

    A lot of what Bishadi has said amounts to "The flavour of cabbage is asparagus because the colour is blue".
     
  19. Forceman May the force be with you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    206
    I am for you not against you, Trippy. I was referring to Bishadi in my criticisms.
     
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    'Sall good.
     
  21. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    How has this guy not been banned yet? Do we just not have any standards?
     
  22. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    That's what the "Report" button is for. Did you use it? This isn't my board so I haven't been following this thread assiduously, and even if I had I'm no chemist so I'd be reluctant to judge.
     
  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Heh, well, as proof of my assertions (yes, I know Wiki isn't the best source, but it's generally the most convenient, readily understandable, and in this instance, AFAIK, correct).

    Wiki: Electrochemcial Cell
    Wiki: Standard Electrode Potential
    Wiki: Table of Standard Electrode Potentials
    Wiki: Lead Acid Batteries

    The key points being that Batteries work exactly as I described them, and both terminals of a battery have a potential, but what drives the current is the difference between those potentials.

    As for reporting Bishadi's posts, i've been ruminating on that one, because the fact of the matter is they do border on being abusive.
     

Share This Page