symboom
International Hazard
Posts: 1143
Registered: 11-11-2010
Location: Wrongplanet
Member Is Offline
Mood: Doing science while it is still legal since 2010
|
|
making some of the transition metals by electrolysis of there salts
i seem to be lost here i know i have a post of zinc sulfate
but been trying to make the other transition metals.
it seems using chlorides don't need a salt bridge as the chlorine evolves as a gas as the case of zinc chloride
im attempting of these metal sulfates
using aluminum as a cathode and platinum(primarily silver lead alloy) anode separated by salt bridge of its metal salt
---------------
oxidize easier
---------------
Mn Fe Co most likely zinc too need to be separated by salt bridge so reaction doesn't reverse and dissolve what is formed
Manganese all i could find was one they made manganese dioxide through electrolysis of manganese sulfate
not sure about making electrolytic manganese
Iron most likely like manganese oxidizes less easily
Cobalt most likely like iron but oxidizes less easily
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nickel not to sure about electrolysis of nickel sulfate guessing its like copper sulfate?
Copper is a easy one copper sulfate they don't even have to be separated
Zinc i know electrolysis sulfate probably need to be separate by a salt bridge. success of electrolysis of zinc chloride no salt bridge
Tincan be reduced by aluminum even zinc
electrolysis of metalloids ie bismuth sulfate using even zinc as an cathode
------------------------
zinc sulfate
nickel sulfate
manganese sulfate
cobalt sulfate
-maybe cheaper sources of metals
-----------------------
Noted nickel and cobalt salts are carcinogenic
[Edited on 4-5-2011 by symboom]
|
|
|
m1tanker78
National Hazard
Posts: 685
Registered: 5-1-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
symboom, do you actually perform any of these experiments? If all these questions you ask are just out of curiosity then that's OK but it wouldn't
hurt to actually perform some of these experiments and then follow up with your results.
As for your original post:
| Quote: | | i seem to be lost here |
So was I after reading your post. I can't tell the difference between your
questions and your assertions. Try narrowing your questions down some so that people can follow along and discuss the topic. Many here are
knowledgeable in theoretical and practical redox reactions...
Tank
|
|
|
symboom
International Hazard
Posts: 1143
Registered: 11-11-2010
Location: Wrongplanet
Member Is Offline
Mood: Doing science while it is still legal since 2010
|
|
success with zinc metal from zinc sulfate
and tin sulfate to tin
and iron sulfate to iron
still need to try cobalt and manganese
any suggestions with manganese on not allowing it to oxidize on its surface?
|
|
|
Hades_Foundation
Harmless
Posts: 23
Registered: 18-2-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well, I'm lost too.
There are a maximum of 92 elements normal chemists deal with. (i know it's a lot less, but I ain't going to parse data until I find some decent data
to parse...).
Imagine my surprise, after a really long search, there's no source to be found that even lists which elements have been produced by electrolysis.
I know about electrode potential and electronegativity, oxidation state and oxidation number etc... and there are loads of websites and books teaching
you all that, but a simple table saying what elements could be or have been isolated by electrolysis (limited to a certain solvent, type of salt or
whatever...), that you cannot find.
Am I missing something, or is it that all those books just don't like to say "we don't know"? Because as far I can see, all i've read till now about
electrode potential and solubility of salts seems to suggest that it all could be decided by an algorithm.
I know chemistry isn't as simple as that, but f..king hell, how do you decide what is and what isn't possible if it's anyone's guess whether the
reactions you see in textbooks are realistic? E1, E2, Sn1, Sn2, I've seen them in college, but if I compare to other subjects, like physics, maths,
electricity or electronics, none of them shows such a gap between theory and practice. I can't even think of a way to make them so far removed from
reality. (Well, maybe if you identify capacitors and resistors by their size and color and voltage sources by the taste of their electrolytes.. ).
I had organic chemistry, 200 pages of chemicals, reactions and naming conventions to memorize, inorganic (or whatever the name was) chemistry, 1500
pages of mathematical equations (can't even remember if any specific element was covered besides H, I do remember the Millikan experiment in the first
book ), and thermodynamics, which was 250 pages summerized in 25 pages of partial differential equations. But they didn't teach me chemistry...
|
|
|
m1tanker78
National Hazard
Posts: 685
Registered: 5-1-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
hf, I suppose it depends on the individual. I like simple chemistry (for a side hobby) but it bored the f**k out of me in college. Working out of a
book has never been my style. I need to employ at least 2 of the 5 senses in order for things to hang around in memory.
As for electrolysis, you're right; there isn't any magic table that shows what and how for the elements. Things become even more vague when you move
into non-aqueous E'sys with molten salts. The latter fascinates me, personally. Imagine how tough yet, exciting it must have been for H. Davy in that
time...
Speaking of Davy, that's probably a good place to start compiling a list of elements that can be isolated with the ol' power supply (and how to avoid
some accidents).
Tanker
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
