Dave, do you recall which substances showed on the spectrograph? Didn't Hydrogen and Oxygen both show up in the results?
The emissions lines were consistent with H2O. The emission lines given off are specific to each substance, even isotopes of the same substance have slightly different emissions. Most of the reason for differences is the arrangement of electrons. Since the arrangement of electrons in H2O is different from the arrangement of hydrogen and oxygen, different emission lines will be given off. I hope I'm understanding your question correctly. I will consult the text book for more information.
Dave, I'm assuming the reason the glowing tube of water vapor was used, was to ultimately show how to find which gases were present by looking at the frequencies of light radiated from the tube. Correct? In other words, a simple demonstration of a spectroscopy test?
Yup, the water mist was practice but we had a bunch of unknowns. We looked at the emission lines with a spectroscope and then looked up the unknown substance in reference books.
Hydrogen can be dangerous, but if we filled a tube with it and ignited it, the gas would just burn, not explode. Now if the tube was closed, the hydrogen would be isolated from oxygen. I don't think an arc inside the closed tube could do anything more then ionize the hydrogen
I talked to my physics lab professor today, he told me the tube was prepared by vacating the tube and then adding a small amount of water mist. The small amount is why it doesn't just arc across with a high current. he couldn't remember how to calculate it. This is the end of the line, I have no more professors to ask. I think I will put a small amount of mist in a tube under a vacuum and slowly turn up the voltage
Hahah I asked many questions as well but got few answers so far. In lab I asked about the property's of the gas. My lab professor had a book from the manufacturer but it didn't provide any useful information. I then approached my lecture professor who is much more accomplished. He gave a little for information but when I asked about the preparation of the tube he said he could only give me an educated guess and that my questions were getting to much into physics.
I'm on thanksgiving break till next week. Next Tuesday I will talk to my physics lab professor about it. He was a research chemist for many years and can hopefully shed some light on the subject. Sorry for all the delays in providing information and the lack of information. This seems to be a tricky subject. I'll post whatever I can get.
I had some time after class today to find out a few things. My professor thinks the tube is at less than 1atm which seems reasonable. As for the operation, it works just like a neon sign. A small amount of current is being past through the gas at a high voltage. The lab specifically designed it to work properly with the power supply. If anyone has any other questions, I will try to pass them along.
I will see what further information I can get. I won't be able to talked to my professor for s reasonable amount of time till Monday.
I do know that the tube filled with mist was prepared in a lab somewhere and we are just using it to look at emissions. I believe the tube was prepared simply my filling it with mist and then sealing it. After its sealed the volume is fixed and it would have to creat a vacuum to condense which it can not do at a reasonable temperature. I will get the specifics and anything else I feel is useful as soon as I can.
well, it seems to me like its just a way of transporting heat. If we provide energy to break the bonds and the atomic hydrogen absorbs heat from the arc, we are still in the same place. We've just provided more energy from the battery that the hydrogen has absorbed and then releases?
It seems logical to me that if we apply an electric field and stretch out the molecules a higher wavelength would be absorbed. The further an electron is from the protons the lower its ionization energy.
Hold on Steve, I think you may be jumping to conclusions. If you managed to create cations with your setup, they would not last long. The ejected electrons need to go somewhere and in this case they will be captured by previously created cations. I believe you would of just created a circle of ionization and then a return to ground state. Maybe you could insert an electron filter.
This would explain your results. I think you are onto the right track
After all the ionizing research is done... what then? Im wandering what are the goals of the ones posting in this thread or even those that have yet to post with the ionizing research? Steve what are your goals with the ionizing research? Seb what are your goals with the ionizing research? Dave? Please be as specific as possible and with just a first goal for now please.
I'm most interested in removing 4 electrons from the 2p sub shell of oxygen. Or at least a few of them. I'd like to see proof of concept of Stan's injector technology by mixing positively charged oxygen with excited water mist and trying to ignite it. The charged oxygen will hopefully take electrons from the excited water mist leading to the breakdown of the molecule. Stan calls for a positively charged gas, but nitrogen is very stable and hard to ionize.
I was planning on creating an electron cloud with an electron emitter from an old tv. I came across a thread on a physics forum where someone stated that these electrons were just part of the circuit and enter back into it when hit the screen. This kind of puts a hole in my plans. Anyone have any good suggestions for creating an electron cloud?
