element14 Community
element14 Community
    Register Log In
  • Site
  • Search
  • Log In Register
  • Community Hub
    Community Hub
    • What's New on element14
    • Feedback and Support
    • Benefits of Membership
    • Personal Blogs
    • Members Area
    • Achievement Levels
  • Learn
    Learn
    • Ask an Expert
    • eBooks
    • element14 presents
    • Learning Center
    • Tech Spotlight
    • STEM Academy
    • Webinars, Training and Events
    • Learning Groups
  • Technologies
    Technologies
    • 3D Printing
    • FPGA
    • Industrial Automation
    • Internet of Things
    • Power & Energy
    • Sensors
    • Technology Groups
  • Challenges & Projects
    Challenges & Projects
    • Design Challenges
    • element14 presents Projects
    • Project14
    • Arduino Projects
    • Raspberry Pi Projects
    • Project Groups
  • Products
    Products
    • Arduino
    • Avnet & Tria Boards Community
    • Dev Tools
    • Manufacturers
    • Multicomp Pro
    • Product Groups
    • Raspberry Pi
    • RoadTests & Reviews
  • About Us
  • Store
    Store
    • Visit Your Store
    • Choose another store...
      • Europe
      •  Austria (German)
      •  Belgium (Dutch, French)
      •  Bulgaria (Bulgarian)
      •  Czech Republic (Czech)
      •  Denmark (Danish)
      •  Estonia (Estonian)
      •  Finland (Finnish)
      •  France (French)
      •  Germany (German)
      •  Hungary (Hungarian)
      •  Ireland
      •  Israel
      •  Italy (Italian)
      •  Latvia (Latvian)
      •  
      •  Lithuania (Lithuanian)
      •  Netherlands (Dutch)
      •  Norway (Norwegian)
      •  Poland (Polish)
      •  Portugal (Portuguese)
      •  Romania (Romanian)
      •  Russia (Russian)
      •  Slovakia (Slovak)
      •  Slovenia (Slovenian)
      •  Spain (Spanish)
      •  Sweden (Swedish)
      •  Switzerland(German, French)
      •  Turkey (Turkish)
      •  United Kingdom
      • Asia Pacific
      •  Australia
      •  China
      •  Hong Kong
      •  India
      • Japan
      •  Korea (Korean)
      •  Malaysia
      •  New Zealand
      •  Philippines
      •  Singapore
      •  Taiwan
      •  Thailand (Thai)
      • Vietnam
      • Americas
      •  Brazil (Portuguese)
      •  Canada
      •  Mexico (Spanish)
      •  United States
      Can't find the country/region you're looking for? Visit our export site or find a local distributor.
  • Translate
  • Profile
  • Settings
Experts, Learning and Guidance
  • Technologies
  • More
Experts, Learning and Guidance
Ask an Expert Forum Chemistry Project
  • Blog
  • Forum
  • Documents
  • Leaderboard
  • Files
  • Members
  • Mentions
  • Sub-Groups
  • Tags
  • More
  • Cancel
  • New
Join Experts, Learning and Guidance to participate - click to join for free!
Actions
  • Share
  • More
  • Cancel
Forum Thread Details
  • State Suggested Answer
  • Replies 31 replies
  • Answers 4 answers
  • Subscribers 306 subscribers
  • Views 4902 views
  • Users 0 members are here
  • frontpage
Related
See a helpful answer?

Be sure to click 'more' and select 'suggest as answer'!

If you're the thread creator, be sure to click 'more' then 'Verify as Answer'!

Chemistry Project

miadmmam
miadmmam over 9 years ago

Hi,

 

I am looking for a way to use arduino or raspberry Pi to detect Chemical Elements in water, but not sure how to do it or where to start.

 

I have both plus mac and Windows server.

 

this is a new project and need some advice.

 

Mick

  • Sign in to reply
  • Cancel

Top Replies

  • beacon_dave
    beacon_dave over 9 years ago +3 suggested
    There is an Arduino water quality monitoring and notification project documented at: https://create.arduino.cc/projecthub/eani/water-quality-monitoring-and-notification-system-f85d23 which may be a good…
  • DAB
    DAB over 9 years ago +3
    Hi Michael, Interesting idea, but you need to do some research as to the specific types of chemicals you want to detect. Your sensor selection will be determined by the chemicals and the levels of concentration…
  • shabaz
    shabaz over 9 years ago +1
    Hi Michael, I'm not mega-familiar with chemistry, but another technique (depending on your requirements) is to use a spectrometer technique, and it ranges from the simple (using razor blades and a CDROM…
Parents
  • DAB
    0 DAB over 9 years ago

    Hi Michael,

     

    Interesting idea, but you need to do some research as to the specific types of chemicals you want to detect.

     

    Your sensor selection will be determined by the chemicals and the levels of concentration that you want to monitor/detect.

     

    You might want to start with a salt taster circuit using the resistivity of the water to indicate different levels of salt in the water.

     

    It is a simple circuit to make and it will give you experience in working with a simple sensor.

     

    From there, you need to research the various chemicals you want to look for and identify affordable sensors to detect them.

     

    DAB

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +3 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Verify Answer
    • Cancel
  • miadmmam
    0 miadmmam over 9 years ago in reply to DAB

    Hi Dab,

     

    I was basically thinking about all chemicals in the periodic table.

     

    Regards

    Michael

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Verify Answer
    • Cancel
  • DAB
    0 DAB over 9 years ago in reply to miadmmam

    Ah, you might want to wait, as I am currently writing a book where I completely change the Periodic table based upon my new Atomic Model.

     

    In the book I explain why Deuterium and Tritium were excluded and how there are lots of other variations of the elements that the current table just ignores.

     

    As for detecting each element, that will be best done by atomic weight.

     

    The idea of a mix of protons and neutrons is incorrect, as is the idea that electrons orbit the nucleus in many layers.

     

    I will expand on these ideas later, but just be aware that what you thought you knew about atoms is going to change.

     

    DAB

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +1 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Verify Answer
    • Cancel
Reply
  • DAB
    0 DAB over 9 years ago in reply to miadmmam

    Ah, you might want to wait, as I am currently writing a book where I completely change the Periodic table based upon my new Atomic Model.

     

    In the book I explain why Deuterium and Tritium were excluded and how there are lots of other variations of the elements that the current table just ignores.

     

    As for detecting each element, that will be best done by atomic weight.

     

    The idea of a mix of protons and neutrons is incorrect, as is the idea that electrons orbit the nucleus in many layers.

     

    I will expand on these ideas later, but just be aware that what you thought you knew about atoms is going to change.

     

    DAB

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +1 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Verify Answer
    • Cancel
Children
  • phoenixcomm
    0 phoenixcomm over 9 years ago in reply to DAB

    I don't know. I do know my E=IR & E=mc2. the problem is when we talk about the flow of electrons (E) in a wire. you have this little electron called a and a 1 foot of 14 gauge wire. And at one end we put a battery 10 volts and we put in series with the wire a 1k ohm resistor. now solve for I through the circuit. I = E * R [ I = 10/1000] ::= I = 0.01 amps. Now this works universally unless we talk about superconductors. and of course, we discount any R of the wire itself. Therefore we have to assume (lots of trouble) that current/electrons flows at the Speed of Light, and not talk about the velocity of e through a wire.   

     

    Cris

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Verify Answer
    • Cancel
  • DAB
    0 DAB over 9 years ago in reply to phoenixcomm

    Ah but do you see E = m c^2 as it permits the exchange of mass to energy or energy to mass?

     

    Or is it stating that all energy depends on mass, with a maximum energy attained when the speed of the mass reaches c?

     

    My view is the second one.  Which means that there can be no forms of massless energy.

     

    Further, we have all been told that electrons are exchanged between atoms to support current flow.

     

    However, what I have defined is the mechanism by which what has been called electron flow, is actually the transfer of photons between the atoms.  You can get the same effective mass and charge transfer without destroying the integrity of the atom itself.  Also, the photon transfer is consistent with all forms of mass and energy exchange between atoms in all conditions.

     

    Under these conditions, the speed of light becomes the fastest transfer rate of a photon from one atom to another.  As Einstein stated, he was only trying to establish a speed limit for how things in the universe can change.

     

    What makes resistors so interesting is that their function is to limit the amount of mass/energy through the material by inhibiting the movement of photons from atom to atom.  The impurities in the material cause some of the photons to dislodge IR photons, thus generating the heat normally associated with a resistor.

     

    So far all of my analysis supports what we know about the universe, it just refines our understanding as to what really happens at the atomic level.

     

    DAB

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Verify Answer
    • Cancel
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 9 years ago in reply to phoenixcomm

    Electrons have mass and therefore cannot ever reach the speed of light nor approach it without TEV of energy being supplied to them. In a piece of wire they get mEv (m ~ milli) and in a resistor a few EV.

     

    So if they don't move at the speed of light how fast do they move? It's interesting and informative to do a simple calculation. First think about your faucet. When you turn it on water comes out immediately but it is not the water that was put in by the utility. It is the water that was right behind the faucet washer. A piece of wire is much the same. It is full of electrons. If you push electrons in at one end others come out the other, not immediately perhaps but pretty quickly. These are not the electrons you put in but rather ones that were already at the end of the wire. Of course if you keep piling electrons in at one end and taking them out at the other eventually the ones pushed in will appear at the other end or at least they will in the water pipe analogy and that makes it pretty easy to come up with a rough idea of how long that will take and from that an estimate of the velocity.

     

    Consider a piece of copper wire of diameter 0.1 cm (1 mm) and length 1 cm. The volume of this wire is pi*(.1)^2/4. With the density of copper at 8.96 g/cc it weighs 8.96*pi*(.01)/4 and as the atomic weight of copper is 63.45 it contains 8.96*pi*((.01)/4)/63.45 = 1.1E-3 moles of copper atoms. Lets assume that each copper atom has 1 electron in the conduction band. Then the piece of wire has 1.1E-3 moles of electrons ready to be moved around by an applied electric field. Now lets put 1 ampere of current (one coulomb per second) into this wire at one and and a load at the other. One coulomb per second comes out of the wire and flows into the load. One coulomb is 1/F = 1/96485 moles (F is Faraday's constant). Thus we have a 'pipe' with 1.1E-3 moles of electrons in it and we are going to push more in at a rate of 1/96485 =   1.03643e-05 moles per second. The time at which the first of the supplied electrons must come out is thus 1.1e-3/1.03643e-05 = 106.134 seconds (the time it takes to replace all the moveable electrons with new ones) later. Thus an entering electron, on average, take 106 seconds to traverse 1 cm and its velocity is 1/106 = 0.009 cm/sec when the current is 1 ampere. This is about 3600/106.34/100  = 0.338 meters per hour which is of the same order of magnitude as the actual answer (1 meter per hour) based on experimental evidence.

     

    The overall formula for what I've done is

     

    velocity = 4*atomic_weight*current/(pi*d^2*conduction_band_electrons_per_atom*Faraday_constant*density)  cm/sec

     

    Note that we used 1 electron per atom and 1 ampere. Increasing the current would (obviously) increase the average speed and increasing the number of conduction band electrons per atom would decrease it. I don't know the conditions under which the 1 m/hr number arise (see Wikipedia article on conduction).

     

    Now what happens in an actual wire is that as you push electrons into one end that end becomes negatively charged and an electric field with componenets perpendicular to the wire and along the wire result. The perpendicular field terminates at infinity (it's probably easier to think of a circuit with a twisted pair in which case this field component terminates on the other wire. The longitudinal field causes electrons to move and that generates a magnetic field which induces an electric field in the opposite direction reducing the current flow. It's probably obvious where I'm going with this but you get a transmission line. The 'wavefront' you induced when you energized the circuit propagates down the transmission line at a rate dependent on the inductance and capacitance per unit length. For a typical transmission line the propagation velocity might be 50% of the free space rate. Thus not only do electrons move much, much slower than the speed of light but even the signal imposed on one end takes longer to reach the other relative to a light speed based calculation's prediction.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +1 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Verify Answer
    • Cancel
  • phoenixcomm
    0 phoenixcomm over 9 years ago in reply to Former Member

    Andrew, I am just a lowly Aerospace/Computer/Electrical Engineer. when I went to school the

    speed of light ::= 1 light year

    speed of light ::= 186,000 miles/sec

    --

    speed of electric trough wire::= 285,102,627 meters/sec in a 12gu wire

    and miles ::= m * 0.00062137

    so: 299,792,458 meters/sec x 0.00062137 = 177154.219338990 miles/sec

    --

    Therefore: speed of light ~ speed of electric through a wire or about 10k miles/sec less than the speed of light.

    Andrew you will have to forgive me but my HS math always said they were the same. And most of what I do never gets even close to the speed of light.

    You see it's never not the time to learn something new! ie old dog can learn new tricks...LOL

    Sincerely

    Cristina A. Harrison

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Verify Answer
    • Cancel
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 9 years ago in reply to phoenixcomm

    As an electrical engineer you should have studied the Telegrapher's Equations and remember that the speed of propagation of a signal in a transmission line is dependent on the inductance per unit length and capacitance per unit length. For an open wire I don't know what those numbers might be nor do I really for UTP but I can look up the velocity of propagation for UTP and it is typically 65 to 70% of the speed of light. Coaxial cables have, as I recall, similar propagation velocities. In modern high data rate transmission systems and systems that rely on time transfer (GPS, GLONASS) this is very important. Using your value of the speed of propagation in a 12 ga wire note that the propagation delay for a signal would be .05 nS longer per foot were transmission by wire as compared to by light (in a vacuum). Thus if we were to study transmitting a signal 100 feet by wire as opposed to by light we would have to consider an extra 5 nS delay. That doesn't sound like much but for a 1GBps signal it is 5 bits!

     

    More significant here and what I wanted to emphasize mostly because I found it so interesting is that the electrons themselves only move about 1 meter per hour,

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Verify Answer
    • Cancel
element14 Community

element14 is the first online community specifically for engineers. Connect with your peers and get expert answers to your questions.

  • Members
  • Learn
  • Technologies
  • Challenges & Projects
  • Products
  • Store
  • About Us
  • Feedback & Support
  • FAQs
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal and Copyright Notices
  • Sitemap
  • Cookies

An Avnet Company © 2025 Premier Farnell Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Premier Farnell Ltd, registered in England and Wales (no 00876412), registered office: Farnell House, Forge Lane, Leeds LS12 2NE.

ICP 备案号 10220084.

Follow element14

  • X
  • Facebook
  • linkedin
  • YouTube