Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Chemical Etching

uzaymaymunu - 21-1-2013 at 17:44

If you want to etch metals like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2K6XnCRbtA&feature=playe...

Which chemical agent would you use?

I'm really suprised about FeCl3's etching potential. :o
Maybe someone may explain how and why it react with metals (metallic iron included)

Poppy - 21-1-2013 at 17:55

Stepping japanese...
How old are you to hold or be dealing with or going through corrosion?

Its advanced issue on manufacturing trademarks, swords or not.

uzaymaymunu - 21-1-2013 at 18:09

I'm senior chem. student. So who the f. are you? Mr. child protector?

What is the meaning of "stepping japanese" ?

plante1999 - 21-1-2013 at 18:16

I'm 16 years old without any chemistry study and can tell you what is happening:

The iron III chloride oxidize the iron to iron II chloride an is reduced to iron II chloride:

2FeCl3 + Fe -) 3FeCl2

If you add HCl and lets in air all will turn back to FeCl3

4FeCl2 + O2 + 4HCl -) 2H2O + 4FeCl3

You better study more for your chem classes.

FeCl3 take 1 electron to be reduced to Iron II and every metal under it's electrode potential will be oxidized to a chloride.

uzaymaymunu - 21-1-2013 at 18:45

Plante1999 Thanks for the lessons and it's really impressive for 16 y. old person.
But i know these reactions ( i've made ferrofluid and you have to know these reactions to make ferrofluid. http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=23098 )

Knowing the reactions and explaining the reactions "how it would be" is different.
if you study chem or another sciences; you will understand what i mean.
FeCl3 is far more stable than FeCl2. even in our university: a dr.chemist wanted to have pure fe^++ ions without any Fe^+++ ions he couldn't do that. Because metals generally wants to stay on bigger "oxidation basement"
And after this information this reaction is being interesting isn't it?

// I'm sorry to my bad english. it's really hard to explain in english for me.

[Edited on 22-1-2013 by uzaymaymunu]

plante1999 - 21-1-2013 at 18:55

Quote: Originally posted by uzaymaymunu  

FeCl3 is far more stable than FeCl2. even in our university: a dr.chemist wanted to have pure fe^++ ions without any Fe^+++ ions he couldn't do that. Because metals generally wants to stay on bigger "oxidation basement"

[Edited on 22-1-2013 by uzaymaymunu]


Like I said it is a mater of electrode potential.

uzaymaymunu - 21-1-2013 at 19:41

Fe^3+ + e --> Fe^2+ = +0.77 V and positive potential means reaction is themodynamically "voluntary" reaction. And it generally means the reactant more stable than reactives. (gibbs equation)
But Fe^3+ is more stable... ?

And after that question maybe you can explain why lithium is less reactive than potassium although more oxidating potential than potassium mr. little Geber:P

[Edited on 22-1-2013 by uzaymaymunu]

[Edited on 22-1-2013 by uzaymaymunu]

Poppy - 21-1-2013 at 19:53

Should we forbid the guidelines for safety?
Quote: Originally posted by uzaymaymunu  
I'm senior chem. student. So who the f. are you? Mr. child protector?

What is the meaning of "stepping japanese" ?


Stepping japanese was a "jibber jabber" for doing thinks carefully picturing an somewhat secret process of achieving masterpieces.
Quote: Originally posted by uzaymaymunu  
I'm senior chem. student. So who the f. are you? Mr. child protector?


What does f. stands for? Who the f. are you kid?
Quote: Originally posted by uzaymaymunu  


...Maybe someone may explain how and why it react with metals (metallic iron included)...



Mr. Sir, the graduate, perhaps this little question reveals more about how your prodigal success in achieving a degree of bachelorate in chemistry deprives you from the reasoning required to understand why FeCl3 corrodes metals.
Have you thought the guess that a link about manufacture of swords would be nothing but the interest of a high degree cientifical inquirings of a not to be molested at all senior?

Btw, I was curious what you mean't by not being the possibility of existence for pure samples of Fe2+? Is there a formula for that?
Perhaps you could explain because I'm no senior either.

Sorry this is the internet you could be anything from a 8 year old to a senior, I apologizes for that.

[Edited on 1-22-2013 by Poppy]

uzaymaymunu - 21-1-2013 at 20:39

Poppy i'm sorry for my rude post. I had really bad day and i don't like persons "mr. don't do that" everything will be dangerous. But you are right it's the internet.
Quote:

Btw, I was curious what you mean't by not being the possibility of existence for pure samples of Fe2+? Is there a formula for that? Perhaps you could explain because I'm no senior either.


pure Fe2+ means that you have no Fe3+ ions on solution. All iron cations are Fe2+ ok? (anion doesn't important)
Quote:

"Have you thought the guess that a link about manufacture of swords would be nothing but the interest of a high degree cientifical inquirings of a not to be molested at all senior?"


I don't get it.

------------------

And.. my "stupid" question;
Yes maybe it's basic chemistry. but everyone makes simple mistakes sometimes.

And maybe stupid questions will be great inventions Poppy. an example: You should check Daniel Shechtman's life and research career.

I'm sorry again for rude post.

platedish29 - 21-1-2013 at 20:44

Quote: Originally posted by uzaymaymunu  
Fe^3+ + e --> Fe^2+ = +0.77 V and positive potential means reaction is themodynamically "voluntary" reaction. And it generally means the reactant more stable than reactives. (gibbs equation)
But Fe^3+ is more stable... ?????;)

And after that question maybe you can explain why lithium is less reactive than potassium although more oxidating potential than potassium mr. little Geber:P

[Edited on 22-1-2013 by uzaymaymunu]


Thats fascinating my brother uses FeCl3 to corrode printed circuit boards I now will strongly recommend him not to discard that down the toilet again!
Wow people seeming angry somewhat here
Back the days of highschool there too was a prof. who told me gunpowder was unfeasible to make work if produced in a way not resorting to potassium such that the minimal sodium contaminants would ruin it. Well, it was a major slapback as I proved he was wrong but kapt that to myself not going upset or anything but there was also that girl Gina who would love telling people not to do stuff because they were not grown enough for it she was an assistent and treated us like retards (although most of us were indeed) still aside that she would invoke on you not death measuring a graduated cilinder to the damn precise 25mL she had prescribed and would kick your grades to hell even thought the cilinder had only +/- 2mL accuracy.
I think laser levels keep the electrostatic bands a little less volatile for stronger setup complexes which gives rise to situations where it can suck up and electron or diffuse through some other as-strong shells creating the so called covalent bond, but that depends a lot on the surrounding media as for what a think an x-ray batch would distrust that faith in ionic stability. In fact, lasing can give rise to purely statistical rising of one eletron's probability distribuition it would transfer and ultimately get trapped in other media other than the host ion itself. Thankfully that picky didn't harass the students to the edge as she went on the fertile side of chemistry and abandoned us from invoking such paranoid.
It was pretty fun to finally surpass all that suffering and stick here in the forums as long as my brother is doing all the hard work for the moment, thankfully Gine discourage me uinto raping myself into not predicting the unpredictable and following the intercourses as by usual. Not that this is going somewhat off-topic but again that etching was astonishingly amazing if all I knew how I'd get that I would etch the s. out of car chassis and stuff!;)
Haha, that would be pretty
:D

Poppy - 21-1-2013 at 20:54

/\ Wth dude?
Oh well man its okay, just watch this and if you don't laugh I think you can understand my feelings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GJOVPjhXMY
Me too would engrave a lot of things with that! lol
As for the question about lithium and potassium, first: I don't know never dealt with lithium before although I got plenty of watch batteries and I plan on extracting lithium frmo them
& second: watch this video about alkalis in water, caesium being by far the strongest of the guys. Maybe that explains?

Honestly, dude why are you impregnating me with all that nostalgia?



[Edited on 1-22-2013 by Poppy]

platedish29 - 21-1-2013 at 21:52

You grabbing on me now? Whats the problem with you trying to rule everyone out? Are you itchy?

Jesus

uzaymaymunu:
I've come across this idea recently. We've been dissolving scrap computer parts for gold and there was this enamel thing on the boards, very hard and unsoluble to conventional paint removers, but breakable under the action of strong acid, so that it turns into a thick gel, which climbs to the glassware walls. I conclusion, a similar enamel with the inscriptions would allow an acid to atack the metal and further on stick to the metal again preventing the acid from leaking everywhere!

CaliusOptimus - 21-1-2013 at 22:25

If you want to etch metals like it's done in the vid, it can be done with almost any electrolyte. The felt pad is soaked in electrolyte, and a current is passed through it to (or from?) the work piece through a stencil.

plante1999 - 22-1-2013 at 01:30

Quote: Originally posted by uzaymaymunu  
Fe^3+ + e --> Fe^2+ = +0.77 V and positive potential means reaction is themodynamically "voluntary" reaction. And it generally means the reactant more stable than reactives. (gibbs equation)
But Fe^3+ is more stable... ?

And after that question maybe you can explain why lithium is less reactive than potassium although more oxidating potential than potassium mr. little Geber:P

[Edited on 22-1-2013 by uzaymaymunu]



[Edited on 22-1-2013 by uzaymaymunu]


I don't know who is Geber, but anyway here is it: Lithium is more reducing than sodium, potassium or ceasium, and give more energy when reacted with water for instence then ceasium, First because its atomic mass is much less then ceasium. And the energy liberated is similar but one mole of ceasium weigh much more. Secondly lithium take more starting energy fore the reaction then ceasium, but release much more after the reaction.

Hope it helped to clear something out.

[Edited on 22-1-2013 by plante1999]

Vargouille - 22-1-2013 at 02:52

So, iron ions is the topic of the morning, is it?

You are incorrect in the statement that it is impossible to achieve a solution of ferrous ions without measurable ferric contamination. It is, however, difficult, requiring a mildly acidic, deoxygenated environment saturated with a non-complexing reducing agent such as hydrogen. This is because the oxygen in the air has the nasty habit of oxidizing ferrous to ferric. Note that the half-reaction for a redox reaction isn't particularly meaningful unless you know what the other half of the reaction is.

PS: Geber is the Westernized name of an 8th-century Arabian alchemist.

uzaymaymunu - 22-1-2013 at 04:58

Quote: Originally posted by plante1999  
Quote: Originally posted by uzaymaymunu  
Fe^3+ + e --> Fe^2+ = +0.77 V and positive potential means reaction is themodynamically "voluntary" reaction. And it generally means the reactant more stable than reactives. (gibbs equation)
But Fe^3+ is more stable... ?

And after that question maybe you can explain why lithium is less reactive than potassium although more oxidating potential than potassium mr. little Geber:P

[Edited on 22-1-2013 by uzaymaymunu]



[Edited on 22-1-2013 by uzaymaymunu]


I don't know who is Geber, but anyway here is it: Lithium is more reducing than sodium, potassium or ceasium, and give more energy when reacted with water for instence then ceasium, First because its atomic mass is much less then ceasium. And the energy liberated is similar but one mole of ceasium weigh much more. Secondly lithium take more starting energy fore the reaction then ceasium, but release much more after the reaction.

Hope it helped to clear something out.

[Edited on 22-1-2013 by plante1999]


Enough. Study chemistry. Maybe some physics like "electrical potential".
And enthalpy, basic thermochemistry.

uzaymaymunu - 22-1-2013 at 05:03

Quote: Originally posted by Vargouille  
So, iron ions is the topic of the morning, is it?

You are incorrect in the statement that it is impossible to achieve a solution of ferrous ions without measurable ferric contamination. It is, however, difficult, requiring a mildly acidic, deoxygenated environment saturated with a non-complexing reducing agent such as hydrogen. This is because the oxygen in the air has the nasty habit of oxidizing ferrous to ferric. Note that the half-reaction for a redox reaction isn't particularly meaningful unless you know what the other half of the reaction is.

PS: Geber is the Westernized name of an 8th-century Arabian alchemist.


I did not say imposible, yes it's possible but difficult.
And for another; yes you are right.

everyone in this forum should know Geber. is not it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%81bir_ibn_Hayy%C4%81n

plante1999 - 22-1-2013 at 05:39

Quote: Originally posted by uzaymaymunu  
Quote: Originally posted by plante1999  
Quote: Originally posted by uzaymaymunu  
Fe^3+ + e --> Fe^2+ = +0.77 V and positive potential means reaction is themodynamically "voluntary" reaction. And it generally means the reactant more stable than reactives. (gibbs equation)
But Fe^3+ is more stable... ?

And after that question maybe you can explain why lithium is less reactive than potassium although more oxidating potential than potassium mr. little Geber:P

[Edited on 22-1-2013 by uzaymaymunu]



[Edited on 22-1-2013 by uzaymaymunu]


I don't know who is Geber, but anyway here is it: Lithium is more reducing than sodium, potassium or ceasium, and give more energy when reacted with water for instence then ceasium, First because its atomic mass is much less then ceasium. And the energy liberated is similar but one mole of ceasium weigh much more. Secondly lithium take more starting energy fore the reaction then ceasium, but release much more after the reaction.

Hope it helped to clear something out.

[Edited on 22-1-2013 by plante1999]


Enough. Study chemistry. Maybe some physics like "electrical potential".
And enthalpy, basic thermochemistry.


My answer was referring to thermochemistry and gibs free energy, you fool. "Secondly lithium take more starting energy fore the reaction then ceasium, but release much more after the reaction" this is reference to thermochemistry, I could even give you data if you want.

And by the way, it is extremely easy to make iron II, look in brauer for instance.

uzaymaymunu - 22-1-2013 at 05:53


"My answer was referring to thermochemistry and gibs free energy, you fool. "Secondly lithium take more starting energy fore the reaction then ceasium, but release much more after the reaction" this is reference to thermochemistry, I could even give you data if you want."

This is not answer kid it's a result. And what is your source yes give it?
read some about "determinism in science" because this is not why it do that.


"And by the way, it is extremely easy to make iron II, look in brauer for instance."

I said "getting pure Fe2+ ions" not make Fe2+ ions kid.

uzaymaymunu - 22-1-2013 at 05:58

Quote: Originally posted by platedish29  
You grabbing on me now? Whats the problem with you trying to rule everyone out? Are you itchy?

Jesus

uzaymaymunu:
I've come across this idea recently. We've been dissolving scrap computer parts for gold and there was this enamel thing on the boards, very hard and unsoluble to conventional paint removers, but breakable under the action of strong acid, so that it turns into a thick gel, which climbs to the glassware walls. I conclusion, a similar enamel with the inscriptions would allow an acid to atack the metal and further on stick to the metal again preventing the acid from leaking everywhere!


Did you get gold?

plante1999 - 22-1-2013 at 06:42

Quote: Originally posted by uzaymaymunu  

"My answer was referring to thermochemistry and gibs free energy, you fool. "Secondly lithium take more starting energy fore the reaction then ceasium, but release much more after the reaction" this is reference to thermochemistry, I could even give you data if you want."

This is not answer kid it's a result. And what is your source yes give it?
read some about "determinism in science" because this is not why it do that.


"And by the way, it is extremely easy to make iron II, look in brauer for instance."

I said "getting pure Fe2+ ions" not make Fe2+ ions kid.


I was trying to be polite with you, but naming me kid... You are not really in a good position to talk to me like that, you know? I don't think I need to prove myself, it is already done. For you however...

Look in Brauer, you will see that it is easy to make "pure" Fe II. salts. Pure product do not exist, but you probably already know that.

Senior, you should be able to find thermodynamic chart by yourself, and figure out how to use it.

[Edited on 22-1-2013 by plante1999]

White Yeti - 22-1-2013 at 06:50

It's about time someone issued a warning.

@uzaymaymunu
Ad hominem is forbidden on this forum. It is arrogant and rude to refer to long-time forum members as kids when you yourself display all the associated characteristics. Double posting is not allowed, if you want to add information to your posts scroll over to the blue edit button on the bottom or top right corner, and do the extra effort to click on it.

Quoting entire posts makes the thread unnecessarily long and irritating to read.

This is a world wide forum, there is no discrimination against non-native English speakers like yourself. In fact, plante1999 doesn't speak English as his first language, and neither did I when I began. But treat others with respect, and they will return the favour and be more understanding of the language barrier.

One more faux pas and this thread gets reported. It will end up in "beginnings" if you're lucky.

Vargouille - 22-1-2013 at 14:08

From the viewpoint of thermodynamics, the Li reaction with water should release more heat than that of Cs, and I do believe that Plante has it backwards; Li releases more energy upon reacting with water, and less upon solvation.

2Li + 2H2O --> 2LiOH + H2
2LiOH -(H2O)-> 2Li+ + 2OH-

The reactions for cesium are analogous. Attached are the calculations to support. The math is done assuming STP and reaction conditions such that 2 moles of alkali metal are reacted with a large excess of water.

Knowing now that Li releases more energy upon reacting with water than Cs, it should come to no surprise that when equal masses of both are added to water, the Li will release more energy, because there are more moles of Li than there are of Cs.

PS: To both of you, restrain yourselves. Engaging in such tomfoolery as personal attacks only serves to besmirch your good names. Attack the ideas espoused, attack the implications thereof, but never attack the person. You may be sure that I speak in good faith, as I do not wish this thread to join the many others in Detritus.

ScienceSquirrel - 22-1-2013 at 14:16

Please try and keep it civil.

plante1999 - 22-1-2013 at 15:08

Oh, I used:
E = energy
Li -) Li+ + E
Ce -) Ce+ + E

I removed part that where similar. I was sure that lithium give less energy when reacting, but way more after the reaction... I may have made a mistake...

"PS: To both of you, restrain yourselves. Engaging in such tomfoolery as personal attacks only serves to besmirch your good names. Attack the ideas espoused, attack the implications thereof, but never attack the person."

"Please try and keep it civil."

I think I was civil, at least I tried to, until he used "kid".

Fe II is easily got "pure". Please read Brauer in the iron part, I'm sure it will help you:).


[Edited on 22-1-2013 by plante1999]

[Edited on 22-1-2013 by plante1999]

Vargouille - 22-1-2013 at 15:43

It could be that the release of Gibb's free energy follows the pattern you ascribe, but that's a separate series of calculations that I didn't bother to do. I felt the enthalpy calculations would be sufficient.

uzaymaymunu - 22-1-2013 at 16:54


Your answer "Lithium is more reducing than sodium, potassium or ceasium, and give more energy when reacted with water for instence then ceasium, First because its atomic mass is much less then ceasium. And the energy liberated is similar but one mole of ceasium weigh much more. Secondly lithium take more starting energy fore the reaction then ceasium, but release much more after the reaction"

İ said "Cs or K is more reactive than Li but have less potential than li, why?" Not: "more exothermic than sth"

So your answer is not about that question. [MEKP is much more reactive than acetone. But acetone gives more energy than mekp when combustion.]
And i will say again learn chemistry. Do you have any book except brauer's handbook? İf answer is yes ok read it.
And maybe this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactivity_(chemistry)

And i may have made simple mistakes. When you after going to university (i hope you will) you will understand how can a person do simple mistakes especially having more profession about something.

(Thank you for calculations Vargouille)
I apogilize to everyone. And this topic is over to me.

plante1999 - 22-1-2013 at 17:04

Quote: Originally posted by uzaymaymunu  


And i will say again learn chemistry. Do you have any book except brauer's handbook? İf answer is yes ok read it.
And maybe this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactivity_(chemistry)



I have a collection of 2000 chemistry book, most of them are longer than 1000 pages. I will continue to learn chemistry, don't worry. I know what is reactivity, the more energy a reaction give when the reaction start (and not end) will give a more violent reaction. The inverse will make very exothermic reaction, without much violence.

Vargouille - 22-1-2013 at 17:28

Cesium and potassium are more reactive than lithium because of their sizes. The ionization energy of an atom exists because there is an attractive force between the positively charged nucleus and the negatively charged electron. When there are multiple electrons in the electron cloud, they tend to lessen the attractive effect of the nucleus, an effect called "shielding". This is because of the repulsive effect that particles of the same sign exhibit. Inner electron shells shield more strongly, lessening the attraction between the nucleus and the valence electrons even more. Cesium has more of the inner electron shells than lithium, thus it gives up an electron more easily.

Lithium has a lower redox potential, however, because of the behavior of both lithium and the lithium ion. While lithium is less reactive than cesium, it is also more polar, so more water molecules will bond to it. This offsets the lowered reactivity of the lithium atom, resulting in a lower redox potential than cesium, because the combination of the energy released by the lithium upon oxidation and upon its hydration outweighs that of cesium. This applies because the redox potentials are determined in aqueous solution.