what happens if?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Write4U said:
I would hazard
Click to expand...
im waiting to see if that sun spot erupts into an ejection.
http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=152996
lightbridge_strip.jpg

Does this mean sunspot AR2738 will explode--or quietly fall apart? No one can say. Readers with solar telescopes are encouraged to monitor developments.
Click to expand...
 
Beaconator said:
I guess I could make something like that which would provide the outcome I am looking for.
Click to expand...
Apparently it is quite easy as far as experiments are concerned. No extra-special environmental requirements. You can practically do it on the beach.
 
Aren't colleges interested I having the equipment to isolate chemical elements?

And wouldn't everyone like to see what happens when they are in the same box without using a computer to do so?
 
What does your belief system tell you happens when all the chemical elements are put in the same box?
 
exchemist said:
So according to you, gold should be more reactive than iron. And helium should be more reactive than, say, potassium.

I see.
Click to expand...
Iron like gold is centrally located on the table... They are similar in reactivity. Please excuse my vast idiosyncratic oversimplifications. And the odd comments I often enjoy at times.

That said, in terms of the proposed experiment adding helium could be a larger mistake than adding too much potassium. Potassium, I assume, would combine with some semiconductor and reduce in volume as a complete electron shell in solid form. as opposed to helium which would not combine and expand in volume as a gas to a greater degree given changes in temperature.

Likewise gold is naturally fissionable and could create unwanted changes in temperature, pressure, and even completely unintended results. So even though it is less likely to bond with many substances I can't rule it in as a safer material simply because it is less likely to form a chemical bond.

The goal is to safely have as many elements as possible in a singular location without the container breaking.

So I may be conflagrating the basic assumptions of chemical reactivity with possible undesired outcomes when I say iron is the most "stable" choice I been able to decipher.
 
Beaconator said:
So I may be conflagrating the basic assumptions of chemical reactivity with possible undesired outcomes when I say iron is the most "stable" choice I been able to decipher.
Click to expand...
Iron is definitely not the least chemically reactive element, it is not even the least reactive metal.

Why do you like to make up things? I find learning about real science is very rewarding.
 
Beaconator said:
So I may be conflagrating the basic assumptions of chemical reactivity with possible undesired outcomes when I say iron is the most "stable" choice I been able to decipher.
Click to expand...
Possibly you're confusing chemical reactivity with fusion energy - which would not apply in this hypothesized box.
 
origin said:
Iron is definitely not the least chemically reactive element, it is not even the least reactive metal.

Why do you like to make up things? I find learning about real science is very rewarding.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it is chemically less reactive than any other material.

Just that it is a stable choice for its intended use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top