and I was being pretty stupid there (sort of initially thought the reaction was redox acidentally, then the image stayed even though I amended that. Boom)
One of the reasons I post is because it helps me learn.. If you check out my answers on Phy.SE, many of them are hatted with "I'm not sure of this; comments appreciated"
I'm probably going to rewrite the answer and undelete (fortunately, we can do that)
@CHM Actually, comments pointing out mistakes are quite common on Physics. An issue which has led to a bit of drama on our meta :/ (a high rep sometimes posts "this is wrong!, delete it!" without explaining what is wrong )
But a normal "This is wrong because of blah/This is wrong, see my answer for details" is perfectly OK
Amorphous metals are often referred to as metallic glasses due to their quenched atomic disorder. Do they fracture in the same fashion as silicate glasses? If not, what failure mode(s) do they have?
In Density Functional Theory courses, one is often reminded that Kohn-Sham orbitals are often said to bear no any physical meaning. They only represent a noninteracting reference system which has the same electron density as the real interacting system.
That being said, there are plenty of studi...
@RichardTerrett it is possible, but the current stance from the SE team and the physics moderators is that it is better to post a new question on Chemistry, linking to the Physics one, and possibly editing it a bit so the "chemical" viewpoint is clear
@Fx I don't know why there are 3 answers to it so far, as the question as currently defined is so vague that respondents need to extrapolate meaning out of it.
So now there are three answers to the question 'what is combustion?', which rather fails the general reference criterion
@Manishearth - I remember using a portable turbidimeter
quite a nice apparatus
@Manishearth - when I was an undergrad I did a course in environmental chemistry, part of the course is going to a heavily polluted area and taking measurements/samples
in this case, a mine adit
iirc the pH was something like 2.5 at the adit
there's a superfund site in the US called iron mountain where the water pH gets down to -3.6
so, I'll let you two chat, but I see three important things to answer this question…
1. the reaction is really Ag+(aq) + Cl–(aq) --> AgCl(s); writing it with spectator ions is deceiptful (see how the OP asks “is it because Cl is one when NO3 is multiple”, while NO3 has nothing to do in there)
2. it's not redox, which was already solved
3. why does AgCl have low solubility, which is the crux of it
@cbeleites I think I've been clear on the subject of AgCl's low solubility, by using words like "practically insoluble" or "has a low Ksp". Also, I absolutely agree that Le Chatelier's principle dictates the experiments you propose, but that's not the case for the initial reaction.
Maybe I could change the wording again, to remove all possible confusion.
@cbeleites That's what I'm trying to convey: I can change my wording, but I thought I was being clear that it was not 100% insoluble, just overwhelmingly insoluble.
@cbeleites You mention that you could predict the formation of precipitate by looking at enthalpy of formation and Ksp. I agree on both counts - what I am stressing here is that, to me, the enthalpy of formation is more fundamental than the Ksp. It's probably a philosophical argument.
@cbeleites I've removed it, for the sake of cleaning up the question page.
@cbeleites after you come to a mutual agreement (or disagreement), I suggest you both remove all your comments, edit your posts into two coherent answers (no "Edit" or "Reply to")…
@Both When I first came to SE, I was happy to be able to accept answers. Now that I've used it for some time, I think it should be barred. Only upvotes/downvotes.
I'm not an expert with HSAB (far from it) but we had it at university. I have to admit that I went for the book to give it a quick refreshment. If you happen to read German: Hollemann Wiberg around p. 250.
F'x: I wouldn't have dug at HSAB if CHM hadn't argued first (well, HSAB is rather 2nd or 3rd priciples) which took me to the next theory after my completely empirical first approach.
I mean, maybe I need to explain that I'm probably a very experiment-oriented person with respect to the stuff we discuss here. I work on theory (and like it) but it is not theory about ab-initio chemistry, but theory about statistical analysis of experiments (I'm analytical chemist).
As I said, it's just an impression I have: $\Delta G = \Delta H - T \Delta S = -RT\ln K$. To me, entropy and enthalpy are "more profound" or "more fundamental"
It's really not something I've thought through - show me the light if you can. It's only an impression I have.
(And maybe my mood is still influenced by a lab student I recently had who had a very good grasp on theory but his mindset was that there's no need for the experiment as there is already a theory. )
I think I'm biased towards a thermodynamical view of problems. Fx, you already corrected me in another question, when I relied too eagerly on $\Delta G_F$
@cbeleites Hi to you too. I've never seen Winnipeg. I'm in Montréal.
but thermodynamics is a bitch, because you need to define things very very precisely (what's your system, what's your process, so on)… and it's easy to get lost even if you know the path you want to walk
Amorphous metals are often referred to as metallic glasses due to their quenched atomic disorder. Do they fracture in the same fashion as silicate glasses? If not, what failure mode(s) do they have?
I'm wondering what the temperature of pure oxygen being burned is.
