Serious inquiry re color of Miracle Gro
Bill Walker
Boys & Girls,
Here's a good one to puzzle over.
Daddy, why is Miracle Gro blue?
Well, I can tell you that my answer - that it's from the CuSO4*5H2O
doesn't seem to right when I consider the amount of iron (III) that's in
solution - almost twice as much.
It's over half ammonium sulfate and urea, with potassium chloride, some
boric acid, sodium molybdate, copper sulfate, iron (III) EDTA, manganese
(III) EDTA, and maybe some other trace stuff.
But a mixture of the metal salts / complexes in water ISN'T that cool,
clear blue color that you get when you dissolve those heterogeneous blue
crystals of the commercial product in water.
What gives? Is this an order of addition/physical state problem of
compounding and formulation?
Do the EDTA complexes of Fe and Mn need to be made first, and then added
to CuSO4?
Bill
Charles
wrote:
My uneducated assumption is that they put a coloring agent (dye) in
there to make it look that way. The Miracle Gro for lawns is green,
which I suppose is caused by the same effect, dye.
Charles
Monique Reed
tell that a solution is fertlizer water and not plain water. Many
growers use injection systems or proportioners that take up a
concentrated stock solution of fertilizer from a bucket or tank and
add it in a fixed proportion (so many parts per million) to an
automatic watering system. If the grower sees pale blue water coming
out of his irrigation tubing, he knows the system is working. Periodic
testing of the output ensures that the proportioner is callibrated
correctly. Likewise, a home gardener can see that the bluish stuff in
the jug is water with plant food and not drinking water or water for
the steam iron.
One story probably still circulating through horticulture departments
nation-wide concerns one grower who was mixing his stock solution by
color. He couldn't understand why his crops were all showing salt
burn and toxicity symptoms. Turns out his supply of Miracle-Gro (or
equiv.) had gotten wet. The dyes had mostly leached out of the
granules and his stock solution was around a hundred times too
strong. Oops.
Monique Reed
Alfred Falk
4ax.com:
> On Thu, 10 May 2001 15:53:22 -0400, Bill Walker <b...@wam.umd.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Boys & Girls,
>>
>>Here's a good one to puzzle over.
>>
>>Daddy, why is Miracle Gro blue?
>>
>> <snip>
>>But a mixture of the metal salts / complexes in water ISN'T that cool,
>>clear blue color that you get when you dissolve those heterogeneous blue
>>crystals of the commercial product in water.
>>
>>
>>What gives? Is this an order of addition/physical state problem of
>>compounding and formulation?
>>Do the EDTA complexes of Fe and Mn need to be made first, and then added
>>to CuSO4?
>>
>>
>>
>>Bill
>
> My uneducated assumption is that they put a coloring agent (dye) in
> there to make it look that way. The Miracle Gro for lawns is green,
> which I suppose is caused by the same effect, dye.
I have always assumed the same. I think most water soluble fertilizers are
colourless at working concentrations. I can think of two reasons: safety
and making the consumer feel like there's something there for the money.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A L B E R T A Alfred Falk fa...@arc.ab.ca
R E S E A R C H Information Systems Dept (780)450-5185
C O U N C I L 250 Karl Clark Road
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
http://www.arc.ab.ca/ T6N 1E4
http://www.arc.ab.ca/staff/falk/
I Don't Like Spam!
wrote:
>
>Daddy, why is Miracle Gro blue?
>
>
OK, just a couple of wild ass guesses:
>Well, I can tell you that my answer - that it's from the CuSO4*5H2O
>doesn't seem to right when I consider the amount of iron (III) that's in
>solution - almost twice as much.
Considering the toxicity of copper salts to most plants, it probably
is not due to copper sulfate. If there is any copper in it, its
concentration is probably so low that its color would not be visible.
Just about any metallic salt in the concentration necessary to provide
the deep blue coloration of Miracle Grow would be toxic to plants.
>It's over half ammonium sulfate and urea, with potassium chloride, some
>boric acid, sodium molybdate, copper sulfate, iron (III) EDTA, manganese
>(III) EDTA, and maybe some other trace stuff.
Of all of the macro and micro nutrients I have prepared for tissue
culture, only Iron EDTA has any significant visible color, but even in
final concentrations, visible coloration is negligible.
Miracle Gro is probably blue for the same reason that shampoos, soaps,
and most commonly used liquids are the colors they are: artificial
colors added for asthetic reasons. See if there is any statement of
artificial coloration in the ingredient list.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Greatest Prime
ckr...@west.net wrote on 5/10/01 1:00 PM:
Miracle-Gro for tomatoes is reddish.
Bill
SNUMBER6
>Considering the toxicity of copper salts to most plants, it probably
>is not due to copper sulfate. If there is any copper in it, its
>concentration is probably so low that its color would not be visible.
There definitely is Copper Sulfate ... and Zinc Sulfate also probably present
... You are correct that the levels being low ... but both Copper and Zinc are
necesary micronutrients for plant growth ...
I will grant you Copper toxicity (especially towards evergreens) at higher
levels but at the application levels those minerals are needed ...
At slightly alkaline pH values with ammonia present, the Copper Amine complex
is intensely blue and easily visible in the tens of ppm range ... I don't
believe this is the case with Miracle-Gro however ... although the copper
content may very well be in that range ... the pH is definitely not ...
>Miracle Gro is probably blue for the same reason that shampoos, soaps,
>and most commonly used liquids are the colors they are: artificial
>colors added for asthetic reasons.
No doubt ... I agree wholeheartedly ..
>See if there is any statement of
>artificial coloration in the ingredient list.
That may not be necessary but just included as a catch all inert ingredients
...
In the Village ....
I am not a number ... I am a free man !!!!
Chuck Robinson
product manufacturers. They have most colors as well as the metallic gold
and silver powder products. Dry products use a light oil type product to
coat the particles during mixing and the color is added after mixing. The
powders adhere to the dry product fertilizer because of the oil. Liquid
fertilizers use soluble dyes. Some liquids use "green" phosphoric acid as
one of the products in addition to the dyes. Copper Sulfate can be used but
the quantity needed would be too much for plant safety purposes.
CWR
"Bill Walker" <b...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:3AFAF1B1...@wam.umd.edu...
Penny Morgan
anyway. Use Fish & Kelp Emulsion and you won't have to worry about the
salts that build up from commercial fertilizers. Just think of what the
earthworms are saying as you bombard them with the chemicals you just
mentioned. I don't use any chemicals in my yard, and guess what? I have no
pests or disease due to the beneficials that devour the pests and the use of
homemade compost to combat diseases. Unfortunately, society is too trusting
of the marketing gimmicks that are out there promising quick results with
ease of using their product. NOT!
Chuck Robinson
"Penny Morgan" <PMOR...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1YGK6.5497$i56.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> Don't have a clue as to what you're talking about, but I go all natural
> anyway. Use Fish & Kelp Emulsion and you won't have to worry about the
> salts that build up from commercial fertilizers.
Well now Penny, aren't you guilty of listening to the marketing gimmicks of
the Fish and Kelp Marketers too. Isn't everyone trying to sell something
anyway. It all boils down to what you want to believe. At least try to
gain an understandng of what actually occurs in the soil. Then you can make
a knowledgeable decision where you aren't susceptible to anyones marketing
hype.
I've worked with and have continuously used an agricultural lab over the
last 40 years. Plants can only uptake certain structures of nutrients. For
example, K+, Ca+, Mg+ etc., are positively charged Ionic structures and are
SALTS. No matter where they originated they must all become salts before
the plant can use them. Plants can uptake P2O5 in the Ortho Phosphate
structure only. All other structure must convert first (The molecules are
just too big to be utlilzed. N is in either the positive or negative
structure and if the plant does not utilize it, it ultimately will end up as
a nitrate and leach. Except if the soil is flooded or certain other
physical conditions exist..
Positively charged nutrients are adsorbed to the soil structure (it has a
negative charge). Negatively charged nutrients (S and B etc.) leach through
the soil profile. Under normal circumstances it is virtually impossible to
get enough nutrients to cause salt damage. Sodium from roads can build up
and damage vegetation. <<Alkaline soils require different techniques>>
If you soil test and follow the recommendations it is virtually impossible
to experience any salt damage. Additional study on the subject can be
helpful to you. If you want I can recommend some simple texts to read. or
if you wish I have some PowerPoint (slides) I can email.
> Just think of what the earthworms are saying as you bombard them with the
> chemicals you just mentioned.
Earthworms actually love fertilizer. The increased growth of soil flora and
fauna are just like a banquet to them.
> I don't use any chemicals in my yard, and guess what? I have no
> pests or disease due to the beneficials that devour the pests
Commercial farmers won't use chemicals either, unless absolutely necessary.
They are expensive.
> and the use of
> homemade compost to combat diseases.
> Unfortunately, society is too trusting
> of the marketing gimmicks that are out there promising quick results with
> ease of using their product. NOT!
See above!
I hope I have been helpful.
CWR
Tom Moyer
> "Penny Morgan" <PMOR...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:1YGK6.5497$i56.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
>
<snip>
> > I don't use any chemicals in my yard, and guess what? I have no
> > pests or disease due to the beneficials that devour the pests
>
> Commercial farmers won't use chemicals either, unless absolutely necessary.
> They are expensive.
BOO!!! A pox on both of you!!!
As a chemist, this is a sore spot with me. EVERYTHING is a chemical. "Kelp
and Fish Extract" just happens to be a very complicated mixture of chemicals -
many of which are identical to those in commercial fertilizers (and most of
those that aren't get broken down by soil microbes until they are). Plants
don't give a rat's a** about the source of a particular nutrient. In fact,
there is absolutely no difference. If it needs ammonia, it can it get from
decomposing fish or urea or ammonium nitrate. There ain't no difference. The
notion that there is some "mystical quality" in chemicals derived from living
processes was debunked about 1829.
OK, I'll shut off my rant 'n' rave circuits now. We now return you to your
regularly scheduled intelligent postings.
Tom Moyer
Opinicus
news:3AFB87E5...@home.com...
> > > I don't use any chemicals in my yard, and guess what? I have no
> > > pests or disease due to the beneficials that devour the pests
> > Commercial farmers won't use chemicals either, unless absolutely
necessary.
> > They are expensive.
> BOO!!! A pox on both of you!!!
> As a chemist, this is a sore spot with me. EVERYTHING is a chemical.
"Kelp
> and Fish Extract" just happens to be a very complicated mixture of
chemicals -
Ahh but there's difference between the "safe" chemicals that Mother Nature
makes (like cobra venom) and the "dangerous" chemicals that nasty baddies
like Allied Chemical http://www.alliedchemical.com/ produce.
> There ain't no difference. The
> notion that there is some "mystical quality" in chemicals derived from
living
> processes was debunked about 1829.
Debunked. But unfortunately less widely believed than you'd think.
--
Bob
Foça, Turkey
---
Kanyak's Doghouse <http://www.geocities.com/kanyak.geo>
Chuck Robinson
course which is likely also organic. Most growers in the US refer to ag
pesticides as "chemicals" but to fertiliser products as fertilizers.
Also, To correct you, plants can obtain ammonium ion from ammonium nitrate
only if they are certain broadleaf plants or one of most grasses. Otherwise
they wait for the ammonium to convert to the nitrate ion in the soil. All
are able to uptake the nitrate portion and convert it internally to amino
structures.
CWR
Chuck Robinson
"Opinicus" <gez...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:tfn3ekl...@news.supernews.com...
> "Tom Moyer" <tmoy...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3AFB87E5...@home.com...
> > > > I don't use any chemicals in my yard, and guess what? I have no
> > > > pests or disease due to the beneficials that devour the pests
> > > Commercial farmers won't use chemicals either, unless absolutely
> necessary.
> > > They are expensive.
> > BOO!!! A pox on both of you!!!
> Agreed.
See clarification of my post to Tom on the use of the word "chemical"
>
> > As a chemist, this is a sore spot with me. EVERYTHING is a chemical.
> "Kelp
> > and Fish Extract" just happens to be a very complicated mixture of
> chemicals -
> Ahh but there's difference between the "safe" chemicals that Mother Nature
> makes (like cobra venom) and the "dangerous" chemicals that nasty baddies
> like Allied Chemical http://www.alliedchemical.com/ produce.
Allied makes many products. So which ones are those, exactly, that you
classify as "dangerous." Remember, water is a chemical and can be very
dangerous if not used properly.
CWR
>
> > There ain't no difference. The
> > notion that there is some "mystical quality" in chemicals derived from
> living
> > processes was debunked about 1829.
> Debunked. But unfortunately less widely believed than you'd think.
Totally agreed.
Roger Whitehead
> As a chemist, this is a sore spot with me.
As a writer, I find dangling participles irritating. 8-)
> EVERYTHING is a chemical.
Everything physical, anyway. (But I have my doubts about flames and
plasma jets.) Heat, light, gravity, love, death and life are not
chemicals.
Regards,
Roger
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Roger Whitehead,
Oxted, Surrey, England
Chuck Robinson
"Roger Whitehead" <r...@office-futures.com> wrote in message
news:VA.0000213...@office-futures.com...
> In article <3AFB87E5...@home.com>, Tom Moyer wrote:
> > As a chemist, this is a sore spot with me.
>
> As a writer, I find dangling participles irritating. 8-)
>
> > EVERYTHING is a chemical.
>
> Everything physical, anyway. (But I have my doubts about flames
( What exactly is combusting anyway?)
and
> plasma jets.) Heat, light,
and not caused by combustion of "chemicals", eh?
gravity, love,
caused by "chemical" attractions, maybe?
death and life
just words, but life or death of what?
a non "chemical" substance?
are not
> chemicals.????????????????????????
>
CWR
Roger Whitehead
> > plasma jets.) Heat, light,
>
> and not caused by combustion of "chemicals", eh?
Nice try at moving the goalposts, Chuck, but you'll have to get up
earlier in the morning than that. Tom said everything *is* a chemical,
i.e. chemicals as a constituent. He didn't talk about them as causative
agents. Besides, is body heat created by combustion? Is
phosphorescence?
> gravity, love,
>
> caused by "chemical" attractions, maybe?
You mean the apple 'fell' for Newton. I'll buy that. 8-)
> death and life
>
> just words
Just wait until it's your turn to hear the angel of death; that'll be
real enough.
> a non "chemical" substance?
Thanks, you've just made my case for me. You clearly agree that there
*are* substances that aren't chemicals.
Tom Stone
jump in.
Last year I conducted some trials in vegetable production in my greenhouse
30' x 50' with drip irrigation, testing three organic based fertilizers vs.
a commercial 20-20-20 water soluble fertilizer. The four beds were prepared
identically, watered identically and the only difference was the fertilizer
used to grow the crops.
The difference? Double or triple the yields vs. the 20-20-20, disease
problems were different, pest pressures were different, and even the taste
of the vegetables was different.
All fertilizers are the same? I don't think so. What digests the
fertilizers and converts them into forms available to the plant? The
organisms living in the soil. Don't you think it makes sense to apply
products which encourage microbial activity instead of limiting or reducing
microbial activity?
Tom
"Tom Moyer" <tmoy...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AFB87E5...@home.com...
Opinicus
news:3afb9486$1...@nntp.corridor.net...
> > Ahh but there's difference between the "safe" chemicals that Mother
Nature
> > makes (like cobra venom) and the "dangerous" chemicals that nasty
baddies
> > like Allied Chemical http://www.alliedchemical.com/ produce.
> Allied makes many products. So which ones are those, exactly, that you
> classify as "dangerous."
http://www.alliedchemical.com/products/index.html
Remember, water is a chemical and can be very
> dangerous if not used properly.
Yes indeed. If anyone has any doubts see the Dihyrodgen Monoxide Research
Division:
http://www.dhmo.org/
Now I really must get back to work.
Jan
m>, Tom Stone <tst...@naturegrow.com> writes
>I usually love to read the postings without comment, but this time I have to
>jump in.
>
>Last year I conducted some trials in vegetable production in my
>greenhouse
>30' x 50' with drip irrigation, testing three organic based fertilizers vs.
>a commercial 20-20-20 water soluble fertilizer.
Thanks
--
Jan
Tom Moyer
> In article <3afbab8c$1...@nntp.corridor.net>, Chuck Robinson wrote:
> > > plasma jets.) Heat, light,
> >
> > and not caused by combustion of "chemicals", eh?
>
> Nice try at moving the goalposts, Chuck, but you'll have to get up
> earlier in the morning than that. Tom said everything *is* a chemical,
> i.e. chemicals as a constituent. He didn't talk about them as causative
> agents. Besides, is body heat created by combustion? Is
> phosphorescence?
Yes, and sort of yes. There is not a flame burning inside you, but body
heat is ultimately the result of combining organic molecules with oxygen.
It happens in a lot of small steps, but the end result is same as if you
had burned it in a flame (same amount of heat, too). Phosphorescence is
the result of energy being absorbed by molecules, exciting them to a
metastable state. This excited state decays slowly, emitting light as it
returns to the ground state.
And yes, everything *is* a chemical. Since you're the grammarian, let's
take everything to mean literally every thing, i.e. every tangible object
in the universe. Every object you can see or touch is made of chemicals.
"Love" is not a tangible thing and so does not count. Don't you move the
goalposts, either. Flames and plasmas _are_ tangible things. They
consist of gaseous particles (ionized in the case of plasma) in a very
high energy state.
>
> Thanks, you've just made my case for me. You clearly agree that there
> *are* substances that aren't chemicals.
In chemistry, the term "substance" has a very specific meaning. It is
something which cannot be broken down by physical processes and possesses
uniform properties throughout. Thus a "substance" could be a pure
compound or an element. From a chemists perspective, there is no such
thing as a non-chemical substance.
I agree with Winston Churchill about dangling participles: They are
something "up with which I will not put." 8-)
And to Chuck I owe a partial apology ( I will use the standard "it was
late and I was tired" excuse.). While he misused "chemical" (IMHO) to
imply that there is something you could put on your lawn which wasn't a
chemical, he made the same point I did about "natural" fertilizers being
fundamentally no different than commercial. Where natural fertilizers
have the advantage is in complexity - they will tend to have the tiny
amounts of minor nutrients needed for healthy plants which commercial
fertilizers will lack due to their simplicity. In principle, however, a
fertilizer blend could be made with exactly the same nutritional profile
of any natural blend.
OK, I've done enough damage here. Time to move on and piss people off
somewhere else. ;-)
Tom Moyer
Chuck Robinson
using it.
CWR
"Opinicus" <gez...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:tfniloe...@news.supernews.com...
Chuck Robinson
"Roger Whitehead" <r...@office-futures.com> wrote in message
news:VA.0000213...@office-futures.com...
> > > plasma jets.) Heat, light,
> >
> > and not caused by combustion of "chemicals", eh?
>
> Nice try at moving the goalposts, Chuck, but you'll have to get up
> earlier in the morning than that. Tom said everything *is* a chemical,
> i.e. chemicals as a constituent. He didn't talk about them as causative
> agents. Besides, is body heat created by combustion?
Yes indeedy it certainly is caused by combustion at the "molecular" level
> Is phosphorescence?
Again yes!!!!!
>
> > gravity, love,
> >
> > caused by "chemical" attractions, maybe?
>
> You mean the apple 'fell' for Newton. I'll buy that. 8-)
>
> > death and life
> >
> > just words
>
> Just wait until it's your turn to hear the angel of death; that'll be
> real enough
More correct then
Life!!. Sexual or asexual?
IN death ones body is consumed. And, If you were a bad boy, Hell will
consume your soul. Unless of course you are an athiest --- another post
.
>
> > a non "chemical" substance?
>
> Thanks, you've just made my case for me. You clearly agree that there
> *are* substances that aren't chemicals.
Exactly which SUBSTANCES aren't chemical?
CWR
Roger Whitehead
> There is not a flame burning inside you, but body
> heat is ultimately the result of combining organic molecules with oxygen.
> It happens in a lot of small steps, but the end result is same as if you
> had burned it in a flame (same amount of heat, too).
Thank you, I am aware of the Krebs/TCA cycle and the utilization of ATP,
but "is the same as if" is not "is".
Of course, it all depends on how you choose to define combustion. All the
scientific dictionaries that I have seen define it as a chemical reaction
in which a substance reacts rapidly with something, typically oxygen,
producing heat and light. On that criterion, the Krebs/ATP reactions are
certainly an exothermic oxidation but do not attain the temperature
necessary for ignition and, thus, are not combustion.
The same applies to bioluminescence (and chemiluminescence). No ignition:
no combustion.
> Phosphorescence is
> the result of energy being absorbed by molecules, exciting them to a
> metastable state. This excited state decays slowly, emitting light as it
> returns to the ground state.
How can a state return to a state?
> Since you're the grammarian, let's take everything to mean literally
> every thing, i.e. every tangible object in the universe.
According to that definition, not only are objects the only things that can
be classed as "things" but they have to be tangible objects, too. I can't
compete with that. 8-))
> "Love" is not a tangible thing and so does not count.
What a depressing viewpoint. "The best things in life are not things", as
Art Buchwald put it.
> From a chemists perspective, there is no such
> thing as a non-chemical substance.
As you wish. That was Chuck's idea, not mine.
> I agree with Winston Churchill about dangling participles: They are
> something "up with which I will not put." 8-)
He was talking about prepositions.
Roger Whitehead
> IN death ones body is consumed. And, If you were a bad boy, Hell will
> consume your soul.
You are equating consumption with combustion. More expansion of the
meaning of "combustion". You and Tom seem to have adopted Humpty
Dumpty's approach to terminological exactitude: "When I use a word... it
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." 8-)
> Exactly which SUBSTANCES aren't chemical?
I've no idea, you suggested the notion.
Other matters are dealt with in my reply to Tom.
Tom Moyer
>
> The same applies to bioluminescence (and chemiluminescence). No ignition:
> no combustion.
>
> > Phosphorescence is
> > the result of energy being absorbed by molecules, exciting them to a
> > metastable state. This excited state decays slowly, emitting light as it
> > returns to the ground state.
>
> How can a state return to a state?
>
I don't know what your background is and I don't want to be patronizing, but
your statements and questions suggest a lack of chemistry knowledge.
I'm not sure what you mean by "How can a state return to a state?". Molecules
can exist in many different states. There are rotational, vibrational, and
electronic energy levels available to it depending on the total amount of
internal energy it's carrying. Each energy level represents a different state
for the molecule. It can change from one state to another by gaining, losing,
or moving energy around among its various internal modes. You're familiar
with the Bohr model of the atom? Same thing works for molecules - quantum
mechanics, MO theory and all that.
Bioluminescence and chemiluminescence are both chemical processes. A highly
reactive molecule (typically containing an N=N bond) reacts with oxygen or
hydrogen peroxide. The organic product ends up in an excited electronic
state, and as it decays to a lower one it emits a fraction of the reaction
energy (known as quantum efficiency) as visible light instead of heat.
"Decay" in this case means the population of molecules in the higher energy
state decreases with time, not that the molecule itself falls apart.
Phosphorescence is similar, except that no reaction takes place. An electron
is excited to a higher energy state (through heat, light, even sound and
mechanical stress, in some cases), which then decays. This is how
glow-in-the-dark stuff works. Crush a wintergreen lifesaver in a dark closet
with pliers sometime. The mechanical stress gets converted into
phosphorscence - you'll see little sparks of green light.
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
Tom Moyer
Shellie Welch
1T dish soap, and 1T gin in a quart of water to kill plants. If I sat here
long enough (or cared enough) I could figure out which chemical salt it
formed that kills the plants, I could make the organic farmers shudder and
pale at the mere mention of its name.
Another thing that gets me is when people say - "It won't hurt you - it's
all natural ..." Ha! Arsenic is a naturally occurring element. Apple
seeds contain cyanide. Need I go on?
I agree that OVERuse of anything is bad for the environment, but I don't
spazz at the small portions of <gasp> chemicals that I use in my garden.
Shellie
98% H2O
Tom Moyer <tmoy...@home.com> wrote in article
<3AFB87E5...@home.com>...
Chuck Robinson
"Roger Whitehead" <r...@office-futures.com> wrote in message
news:VA.0000213...@office-futures.com...
> > There is not a flame burning inside you, but body
> > heat is ultimately the result of combining organic molecules with
oxygen.
> > It happens in a lot of small steps, but the end result is same as if you
> > had burned it in a flame (same amount of heat, too).
>
> Thank you, I am aware of the Krebs/TCA cycle and the utilization of ATP,
> but "is the same as if" is not "is".
>
> Of course, it all depends on how you choose to define combustion. All the
> scientific dictionaries that I have seen define it as a chemical reaction
> in which a substance reacts rapidly with something, typically oxygen,
> producing heat and light. On that criterion, the Krebs/ATP reactions are
> certainly an exothermic oxidation but do not attain the temperature
> necessary for ignition and, thus, are not combustion.
>
Check your dictionary again. Ignition requires combustion to have occurred.
But combustion does not necessarily culminate in ignition. Heat can be the
end product
What is the difference anyway. most everyone understood what was written.
Execpt for perhaps a few grammarians and or lexiconistic nuts.
> The same applies to bioluminescence (and chemiluminescence). No ignition:
> no combustion.
>
> > Phosphorescence is
> > the result of energy being absorbed by molecules, exciting them to a
> > metastable state. This excited state decays slowly, emitting light as
it
> > returns to the ground state.
>
> How can a state return to a state?
There are States whose boundaries (a river) have changed then returned to
their original position.... 'nuff said.
>
> > Since you're the grammarian, let's take everything to mean literally
> > every thing, i.e. every tangible object in the universe.
>
> According to that definition, not only are objects the only things that
can
> be classed as "things" but they have to be tangible objects, too. I can't
> compete with that. 8-))
>
> > "Love" is not a tangible thing and so does not count.
>
> What a depressing viewpoint. "The best things in life are not things", as
> Art Buchwald put it.
>
> > From a chemists perspective, there is no such
> > thing as a non-chemical substance.
>
> As you wish. That was Chuck's idea, not mine.
If you reread the sentence you will see it was a question and not a
statement (Note the presence of the question mark symbol). The question was
in reference to your use of the word "substance". I asked if you were
referring to a substance as being something that was not necessarily
chemical.
CWR
Chuck Robinson
"Roger Whitehead" <r...@office-futures.com> wrote in message
news:VA.0000213...@office-futures.com...
> > IN death ones body is consumed. And, If you were a bad boy, Hell will
> > consume your soul.
>
> You are equating consumption with combustion. More expansion of the
> meaning of "combustion". You and Tom seem to have adopted Humpty
> Dumpty's approach to terminological exactitude: "When I use a word... it
> means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." 8-)
>
reality.
Hell consuming your soul (intangible). Therefore metaphorically.
You must be one of the kings horses or one one of the kings men. Which
exactly are you?.
> > Exactly which SUBSTANCES aren't chemical?
>
> I've no idea, you suggested the notion.
Note again the presence of the question mark.
I was questioning your statement containing the word "substance" but since
it was clipped by you it no longer exists.
Best regards
CWR
Chuck Robinson
colonies?
It works.
CWR
"Shellie Welch" <She...@Lilly.com> wrote in message
news:01c0da2e$f2d574c0$310c3828@PC0AAO9US0EE...
Roger Whitehead
> This excited state decays slowly, emitting light as it
> > > returns to the ground state.
> >
> > How can a state return to a state?
>
> I don't know what your background is and I don't want to be patronizing, but
> your statements and questions suggest a lack of chemistry knowledge.
Nothing to do with chemistry, Tom, just the logic of what you said. It's not
the state that returns to a state but a substance, one that previously was in
a different state. It's the same class of error as talking about a "hot
temperature" or a "rate of speed". You need no knowledge of chemistry to be
able to detect those.
Thanks for the refresher in chemistry but that is all walking around the
central point, which is that you and Chuck are choosing to define combustion
as a process that does not necessarily involve ignition and the emission of
heat and light. That is your choice; I think it is a heterodox view.
Roger Whitehead
> > Of course, it all depends on how you choose to define combustion. All the
>
> Check your dictionary again.
Note the use of the plural, Chuck. I consulted four.
> Ignition requires combustion to have occurred.
And here's me thinking it's the other way around.
> What is the difference anyway. most everyone understood what was written.
> Execpt for perhaps a few grammarians and or lexiconistic nuts.
And the person who starts the name-calling loses the debate.
> If you reread the sentence you will see it was a question and not a
> statement (Note the presence of the question mark symbol).
Ideas can be advanced as questions. It worked for Socrates, after all. I
merely thought you were thinking the, to you, previously unthinkable.
Obviously not. I apologize for imagining that possibility.
Chuck Robinson
"Roger Whitehead" <r...@office-futures.com> wrote in message
news:VA.0000213...@office-futures.com...
> > > Of course, it all depends on how you choose to define combustion. All
the
> > > scientific dictionaries that I have seen . . .
> >
> > Check your dictionary again.
>
> Note the use of the plural, Chuck. I consulted four.
>
inadequacy of response.
> > Ignition requires combustion to have occurred.
>
> And here's me thinking it's the other way around.
Perhaps you only consulted a pocket dictionary. Again combustion can occur
without ignition. On the other hand, combustion must be able to elevate the
temperature sufficiently before ignition is to occur.
>
> > What is the difference anyway. most everyone understood what was
written.
> > Execpt for perhaps a few grammarians and or lexiconistic nuts.
>
> And the person who starts the name-calling loses the debate.
I don't think the words I used were necessarily derogatory. In my mind
substance is the most important consideration in these debates. Your
statements are seriously lacking in substance therefore you find it
necessary to, in your words, "move the goal posts". Besides, if the shoe
fits, wear it.
>
> > If you reread the sentence you will see it was a question and not a
> > statement (Note the presence of the question mark symbol).
>
> Ideas can be advanced as questions. It worked for Socrates, after all. I
> merely thought you were thinking the, to you, previously unthinkable.
> Obviously not. I apologize for imagining that possibility.
>
Thanks for the parallel, but he was poisoned.
CWR
Tom Moyer
>
> Thanks for the refresher in chemistry but that is all walking around the
> central point, which is that you and Chuck are choosing to define combustion
> as a process that does not necessarily involve ignition and the emission of
> heat and light. That is your choice; I think it is a heterodox view.
>
> Regards,
>
> Roger
>
Well, whatever. If you read what I wrote, I did not say it was the same thing.
What I said was that you end up in the same place and get the same amount of heat
out of it, and implied that the processes were equivalent, not identical.
I really detest semantic arguments. I think I'm done with this one.
Tom Moyer
Bill Walker
Indeed, upon dilution of the metal salts and waiting a while, I got a more
bluish-green color that became an almost yellow-green upon mixture with the rest
of the stuff. Must be a dye. Alteration of the pH of a small aliquot with solid
K2CO3 didn't give me a good, deep blue of the ammonia complex.
1TBS per gallon or whatever is recommended couldn't possibly trash a plant, and
the copper is a good nutrient and fungicide.
Good points about the flora in "organic" fertilizers. This delves more into
microbio and symbiosis than chemistry.
Check please.
Bill
Roger Whitehead
> > > Execpt for perhaps a few grammarians and or lexiconistic nuts.
> >
> > And the person who starts the name-calling loses the debate.
>
> I don't think the words I used were necessarily derogatory
Sorry, Chuck, you can't play any more in this thread. Instead, look up
the phrase, "ad hominem".
Roger Whitehead
> If you read what I wrote, I did not say it was the same thing.
Really? Does this seem familiar:
[Me] "Besides, is body heat created by combustion? Is phosphorescence?"
[Yes] "Yes, and sort of yes".
Just to put it beyond ambiguity, you have there said that body heat
arises from combustion.
But you now say that you are not "choosing to define combustion as a
process that does not necessarily involve ignition and the emission of
heat and light". Make your mind up, either body heat arises from that
(i.e a form of combustion without ignition, heat and light) or else its
cause is not combustion. You can't have it both ways.
No wonder you don't like semantic debates -- they're about meanings.
And that's all there is in a newsgroup, if you think about it.
Chuck Robinson
"Roger Whitehead" <r...@office-futures.com> wrote in message
news:VA.0000213...@office-futures.com...
> > > > Execpt for perhaps a few grammarians and or lexiconistic nuts.
> > >
> > > And the person who starts the name-calling loses the debate.
> >
> > I don't think the words I used were necessarily derogatory
>
> Sorry, Chuck, you can't play any more in this thread. Instead, look up
> the phrase, "ad hominem".
>
"fertilizer" while somewhat colored does not qualify because it has no
nutritional value. You are the one "playing." Stick to thread content or go
away.
CWR
Beverly Erlebacher
Bill Walker <b...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>Boys & Girls,
>
>Here's a good one to puzzle over.
>
>Daddy, why is Miracle Gro blue?
They put a dye in these soluble fertilizers to make it easier for you
to see whether and how much you have added to the water. Different
brands may use different colors and amounts. I've seen greens and pinks
as well as blues.
Monique Reed
it more fun to argue?
M. Reed
Chuck Robinson
"Monique Reed" <mon...@mail.bio.tamu.edu> wrote in message
news:3AFC6C9E...@mail.bio.tamu.edu...
> And I said this too, umpteen posts ago. Was anyone listening, or is
> it more fun to argue?
Actually there thosefew who insist in giving lessons in semantics. They
therefore need no knowledge of the subject. There were also additional
questions that arose.
CWR
Charles
(snip)
>Also, To correct you, plants can obtain ammonium ion from ammonium nitrate
>only if they are certain broadleaf plants or one of most grasses. Otherwise
>they wait for the ammonium to convert to the nitrate ion in the soil. All
>are able to uptake the nitrate portion and convert it internally to amino
>structures.
>
Is this accurate? In the aquarium groups we tell each other that the
plants grab off the ammonia before the bacteria can convert it to
nitrite, then to nitrate.
An algae book I have been reading also refers to ammonia being easier
to use than nitrate. Are terresterial plants different in this
regard?
Charles
Chuck Robinson
"Charles" <ckr...@west.net> wrote in message
news:t8gpftc8jlldf8j0c...@4ax.com...
dependent and includes fruit trees. There are also certain plants able to
uptake the urea molecule. Urea was first developed for rice fertilization
because it would not break down to ammonium nor denitrify under flooded
conditions. Rice can utilize in the urea molecular structure.
CWR
> Charles
Charles
Thank you.
Alf Christophersen
wrote:
>They put a dye in these soluble fertilizers to make it easier for you
>to see whether and how much you have added to the water. Different
>brands may use different colors and amounts. I've seen greens and pinks
>as well as blues.
One brand I used many years ago for tomatoes was either red (with
micronutrients) or blue (only macronutrients). Red Superba was most
popular for tomatoes and I used it interchangeably with Ca-salpetre as
a source of nitrogen and calcium. Both in 1 promille final solution.
Then I got no solid Ca-phosphates or at least next to none of that
solids :-) I let the plant use all the water given before I changed
solution.
Bill Walker
I always thought that the point of having a little algae farm in the bottom of a
wet-dry filter was to soak up the nitrate so that you'd have to do fewer water
changes.
But that was just fishtank lore, not primary scientific reference stuff that I
had dug up myself.
Bill
ccarre...@gmail.com
On Thursday, May 10, 2001 at 12:53:22 PM UTC-7, Bill Walker wrote:
> Boys & Girls,
>
> Here's a good one to puzzle over.
>
> Daddy, why is Miracle Gro blue?
>
>
> doesn't seem to right when I consider the amount of iron (III) that's in
> solution - almost twice as much.
>
> It's over half ammonium sulfate and urea, with potassium chloride, some
> boric acid, sodium molybdate, copper sulfate, iron (III) EDTA, manganese
> (III) EDTA, and maybe some other trace stuff.
>
> But a mixture of the metal salts / complexes in water ISN'T that cool,
> clear blue color that you get when you dissolve those heterogeneous blue
> crystals of the commercial product in water.
>
>
> What gives? Is this an order of addition/physical state problem of
> compounding and formulation?
> Do the EDTA complexes of Fe and Mn need to be made first, and then added
> to CuSO4?
>
>
>
> Bill