Understanding the processes of "cementing/dropping/precipitating" metal ions/solubles into metallics.

[CattMurry]

I am finding it hard to find, or understand the full process/processes of how these things occur. I think I am looking for understanding with valency, and redox actions, but I'm not fully sure.

Example: SMB-> SO2-> SO2 oxidizes thus reducing ions into metallics by Electron exchange?

I need full scope of reactions, ligands properties/bonding actions, half reactions, and so on to even start to understand any of this really.

This interest, curiosity, and confusion stemmed from me wondering why CO2, cannot do what SO2 does with "dropping".

both are 0 charge. Both C, and S are at +4, and O's at their counter of -4.
-Side note: No clue how ionic charges are even relevant if it is just getting the thingies to net value of 0 unless they say otherwise with +, or - charges.

I am curious to know the very used SO2 reaction, so I can start to understand the different action's every reaction, or get an idea of how these are all working.

Please do not give general, or kind answers for a non-chemist. It actually confuses me more. Confuse me, or lay it down onto me with every bit of in depth explanation feasible. I am new of course, but I'm finding it very hard to understand the next steps to understanding anything with chemistry when people try to give easy explanations haha. Not their fault, but it does get very confusing when you start to dig further.

Another topic I am slightly lost on is the use of ionic charges.
Control example: H is at 0 due to Proton-Electron cancelation. H loses it's single electron, and becomes H+1. H gains electron, and becomes H-1

Confusion: Au is at 0 with 79 to 79 E's, and P's. Net result 0, or neutral. Au3 cation is where I get confused. How many states does this go into with stripping electrons from the shells? Find it hard to think of what to type to start understanding the laws/rules on how the shells can lose electrons, and gain them again, or/and gain extras.

Also, let me add that is infuriating that electron movement is explained backwards for example: -'s are actually reactive due to having more electrons.
Example 2: We draw electrical diagrams backwards yet again. Negative flows to positive yet it is drawn the other way.
Example 3: Reduction is gained Electrons (never have I heard reduction in English been used backwards), while oxidation is loosing/shedding electrons.
So, on a side note I wanna know who came up with this terminology, and why if you can answer.

Thanks everyone, and sorry for my noobish questions in advance.

 

[CattMurry]

Only thing I can find is the basic building blocks (S compared to C), and their charge potentials are wildly different. I think I finally found it, but I still don't get why S has so many ionic states under normal(ish) conditions. C has only +4, while S has -2, +2, +4, and finally +6. I would assume this is why S can be more liquid in it's actions, but if there is anyone out there more knowing do fill me in on what I'm missing. I still would like to understand the laws to this.

 

[olawlor]

SO₂ is a reducing gas because it will pick up an oxygen and happily become SO₃, which hydrolyses to a stable SO₄ ion in solution.

CO₂ isn't a reducing gas because it hydrolyzes directly to CO₃, and that's as far as you get because CO₄ is highly unstable. CO (carbon monoxide) *is* a reducing gas, because it wants oxygen, to let it become CO₂.

So why is SO₄ stable but CO₄ unstable? There may be some understandable reason related to bonds (which are straight up quantum mechanical creatures), but I'm not sure it's simple, or if it would help understand refining! The properties of how the elements will combine seems odd and irregular to me, which does make chemistry a bit more like botany than physics. (My last class in chemistry was decades ago, but my non-specialist impression of "the chemistry of precipitation" is that it's at least as complex and confusing as "the political history of eastern Europe since the bronze age"!)

One correction: H⁻ doesn't exist in solution, that I know of. Hydrogen basically exists in solution as H⁺ (acts like a metal ion), H₂ (hydrogen gas, two hydrogens sharing an electron), or OH⁻ (hydroxide, basically H⁺ with O²⁻).

Meta point: to understand reactions in solutions, *don't* think about individual atoms, think about ions. For example, it's not sulfur, it's SO2 or SO4, which are each their own thing.

 

[CattMurry]

SO₂ is a reducing gas because it will pick up an oxygen and happily become SO₃, which hydrolyses to a stable SO₄ ion in solution.

CO₂ isn't a reducing gas because it hydrolyzes directly to CO₃, and that's as far as you get because CO₄ is highly unstable. CO (carbon monoxide) *is* a reducing gas, because it wants oxygen, to let it become CO₂.

So why is SO₄ stable but CO₄ unstable? There may be some understandable reason related to bonds (which are straight up quantum mechanical creatures), but I'm not sure it's simple, or if it would help understand refining! The properties of how the elements will combine seems odd and irregular to me, which does make chemistry a bit more like botany than physics. (My last class in chemistry was decades ago, but my non-specialist impression of "the chemistry of precipitation" is that it's at least as complex and confusing as "the political history of eastern Europe since the bronze age"!)

One correction: H⁻ doesn't exist in solution, that I know of. Hydrogen basically exists in solution as H⁺ (acts like a metal ion), H₂ (hydrogen gas, two hydrogens sharing an electron), or OH⁻ (hydroxide, basically H⁺ with O²⁻).

Meta point: to understand reactions in solutions, *don't* think about individual atoms, think about ions. For example, it's not sulfur, it's SO2 or SO4, which are each their own thing.

BEAUTIFUL rundown, and is very helpful understanding the broad scope of issues in these things, and my thinking haha. Thank you. I actually hadn't even seen CO2 can go into CO3, and 4 honestly. Quite peculiar, but like you said the CO3 would just react to become CO4 then degrade immediately due to being in aqueous solution? Looks like S just has more stable forms, or states to have that liquidity in possible reactions unfortunately. Note: unstable has many uses like degrade, or exploding, so I'm unsure how it is ever being used
I do want to understand the physics though. It is mesmerizing. haha

 

[olawlor]

Note: unstable has many uses like degrade, or exploding, so I'm unsure how it is ever being used

For the basically hypothetical CO₄ ion, I say it is unstable in that it will immediately come apart into oxygen and carbonate CO₃.

In theory if you had a lot of CO₄ in one place, the release of oxygen could be so rapid the solution would basically explode (like a concentrated peroxide solution), but in practice I don't think this can happen because individual CO₄ ions degrade much faster than they happen to get created.

 

[butcher]

It makes carbonic acid in the water, acidic enough to attack and corrode piping or equipment in the industry when heating water to steam we pretreat the feedwater so as to make insoluble metal carbonate salts or mud where we can blow down the boiler to remove the insoluble carbonates, so the steam does not carry the oxygenated carbon gases that with condensation with the water makes an acidic solution of carbonic acid destroying the equipment in a plant, the carbonic acid, and the gases would cause more damage to the metal above the waterline of the equipment worse corrosion or oxidation than it would attack the metal under the liquid line.

 

[CattMurry]

It makes carbonic acid in the water, acidic enough to attack and corrode piping or equipment in the industry when heating water to steam we pretreat the feedwater so as to make insoluble metal carbonate salts or mud where we can blow down the boiler to remove the insoluble carbonates, so the steam does not carry the oxygenated carbon gases that with condensation with the water makes an acidic solution of carbonic acid destroying the equipment in a plant, the carbonic acid, and the gases would cause more damage to the metal above the waterline of the equipment worse corrosion or oxidation than it would attack the metal under the liquid line.

This is fascinating in many senses. Thank you friend, and awesome story, and example. Great to hear safety practices. Like I mentioned before safety protocol is great for learning haha. So "you"/team in essence make them reside, or fall down to a deeper level in solution, or catcher, so that the steam does not carry that acid all the way around if I'm understanding correctly.

Oh feeder water. Derped there. Refined water is then fed to boiler. I think that is more accurate.

 

[CattMurry]

For the basically hypothetical CO₄ ion, I say it is unstable in that it will immediately come apart into oxygen and carbonate CO₃.

In theory if you had a lot of CO₄ in one place, the release of oxygen could be so rapid the solution would basically explode (like a concentrated peroxide solution), but in practice I don't think this can happen because individual CO₄ ions degrade much faster than they happen to get created.

So, if you had CO3 could you not use that then as a redox agent? I'm definitely still getting lost on redox actions haha. I'm fairly lost on how electron recipients, and donors are actually working with different elements. Many examples are using O as taking, or loosing positions, thus removing electron potentialities, but the main factor is electrons being able to move through different compounds being generated. I'm a bit lost on the physics of why some compounds do what other's cannot. I know this seems super obvious "like you derp no duh everything cannot do the same things", but it's putting a huge hiccup in my understanding haha.

 

[butcher]

Until you spend time studying, you will not understand, you would not understand the answer if you heard it without gaining some kind of education or some experience in the subject.

You are focussing on some important points in chemical reactions, that are basically meaningless by themselves, the atoms and their chemical or physical reactions are not as simple as you are trying to make it out to be, and focussing on redox with little understanding of how the reactions work, googling something and asking a lot of questions about something you read without doing the further study is not going to be very helpful to your further understanding of this chemistry we use.

I suggest if you wish to learn start with Hoke's book, and with the forum and the reactions we use, then gain an understanding from the chemistry you learn there, use it to further your education in seeing and working with it, using experience to study more and gain even more experience.

I have run all kinds of industrial boilers fired with many different types of fuel, boiler feed water is not refined water, it can come from most sources of water, streams rivers, wells, treated city water, or dirty mill ponds, the boiler man tests and treats the water with chemicals and or with other methods deaerator, salt ion exchange, and other methods, to remove gases, and reactive metals and their salts from the water that can make the boiler inefficient or even dangerous, or will destroy the equipment in the system. The water is not refined, but we take more out of it than your city's water treatment will take out of your drinking water with chemical and physical reactions.

We recycle water that was previously treated and then distilled by our boilers, it has to also be treated before re-entering the boiler so we actually treat this recycled distilled water in the feedwater and condensation systems of the plant.

I would not call it refined water I would call it treating recovered water we do not want pure water it is too much of an oxidizer itself and would destroy the metals in the plant's systems.

 

[4metals]

Catt,

I am not really sure if you are someone we once banned or just an overall wise ass but your antics here are not appreciated. Butcher has spent an immense amount of time teaching people with much less of an understanding of chemistry than you have, yet somehow you feel justified in insulting him.
I will set up the ban for 2 weeks, if you come back with a different attitude you will be welcomed back to learn, if not you will be be banned permanently.
After all the years I have been here on the forum, having never banned anyone, you will be my first. I take no pleasure in banning anyone but you apparently are here for your own amusement at the expense of others and that is not acceptable.