Chapter 11 of this book on sensor technology gives amongst other things a summary of sensors used for:

• physical water sensing
• chemical water sensing
• biological pathogen water sensing

Sensor Technologies

Healthcare, Wellness and Environmental Applications

By Michael J. McGrath , Cliodhna Ni Scanaill

ISBN13: 978-1-4302-6013-4

Sensor Technologies - Healthcare, Wellness and Environmental Applications

The eBook is available as a free download through ApressOpen.

I will take a look at this book, could be very useful around the lab.

DAB

It's a simple matter of finding the appropriate sensor, calibrating it before each test and then scaling the voltage (or current) reading by the appropriate calibration factor. You can do this for pH (concentration of hydrogen ions) with some difficulty (very high impedance instrumentation amplifier required to sense mV signal, calibration required for each use, adjustment of calibration curve for sample temperature. But it goes down hill from there pretty fast. Let's take sodium, for example, as there is some sodium in almost all water samples. There are electrodes which respond to sodium down to mg/L but they cost hundreds of dollars, take up to 20 minutes to stabilize, and, like pH electrodes, have to be calibrated every time they are used and require very high impedance instrumentation amplifiers.There are techniques for detecting mg/L levels of many of the ions found in water some of which, like sodium, involve ion selective electrodes but for others things like ion couples plasma, absorption spectometry and visible spectrometry are required. Etc.

Moving on to the organics which are, these days, a major concern in water analysis, we move on to gas chromatography and GC followed by mass spectrometry.  All doable but not at the level of an Arduino/Rasberry pi hobbyist.

DAB: apparently you have somehow missed the last, say, 70 years in physics nor do you seem to grasp the basic ideas behind current thinking in this discipline.

Periodic tables do include deuterium and trititium as well as protium. The listed atomic weight is an average which includes these two isotopes (that's what we call something with the same proton number as another form of the same element with a different atomic number) weighted by their relative abundance. Any good periodic table will list all the isotopes (or at least the most abundant ones) of each element.

Nobody (well, nobody with fundamental understanding) has though of electrons as orbiting the nucleus in 'layers' for years. That was a model, the first one, and it didn't last long, perhaps because it isn't a very good one.

The modern model (nucleus made up of protons and neutrons made up of quarks surrounded by an electron cloud) is based on quantum mechanics but you must understand that it is, though to date never contradicted by experiment, just a model and, as such, subject to later refinement or perhaps replacement by a better model (unified theory?, string theory?) but you cannot say it is wrong as it is only a model. You can say it is not a good model if you can present data that contradicts it.

Hi Andrew,

You say that the electron orbiting model is obsolete, but I just saw a respected Theoretical Physicist cite that model for his  work on TV just the other day.  Clearly it is alive and well.

As for science theories, I have found a lot of evidence that most of QM is in great error.

As for Quarks and other imaginary particles claimed by QM, I have found a much simpler stellar fusion process that eliminates all of them and yet fully provides the basis for atoms.

My current model uses a solid nucleus surrounded by a single layer of captured photons to represent what is called the electron cloud.

Using this model, you can find a very simple geometric progression through the atoms identified to date along with their stable and unstable isotopes.

Granted, it has been a few decades since my last chemistry class, which is why I have been doing research into the current physical chemistry thinking.

Most of the QM related ideas are very questionable and several of the constants are in fact completely in error.  Plancks constant being one.

I would like to move this discussion off line as I think you might have the understanding of the detail level that I need to help resolve how my model can better support science.

I will send you a contact request, if you would like to explore my new view of subatomic and atomic structures, just accept and send me a private message.

I am just fascinated by many of the ideas currently used both in the theory and application of these models.

DAB

You say that the electron orbiting model is obsolete, but I just saw a respected Theoretical Physicist cite that model for his  work on TV just the other day.  Clearly it is alive and well.

No, it isn't. You clearly misunderstood what this man was saying (or he isn't respected). I suppose I might speak of  electrons orbiting the nucleus if trying to explain the structure of the atom to my wife or someone else (a TV audience) who I know would have no capability to understand anything more sophisticated than that and I might perhaps refer to, for example, "the p electrons in the third shell" but that does not mean that I think the 3p electrons are orbiting the nucleus in any sense attached to the usual meaning of orbit. That is why we speak of "orbitals" rather than orbits. An orbital is a wave function whose magnitude at a particular set of coordinates describes the probability that an electron will be found at that location. s orbitals are spherically symmetrical and there is a particular distance (the Bohr radius) at which the magnitude of the wave function is maximum but the resemblance to a planetary orbit ends there. There is a finite probability (IOW the wave function has non 0 magnitude) throughout space. The other (p, d, f) orbitals don't even have spherical symmetry. Surfaces of constant probability are lobe shaped. We often speak of 'electron clouds' whose density varies in space.

As for science theories, I have found a lot of evidence that most of QM is in great error.

If you have any experimental evidence that is not explained by or contradicts the postulates of quantum mechanics you are morally obliged to take it immediately to the nearest university physics department as this will be a first.  Be sure your passport is up to date. A trip to Sweden is forthcoming.  But as I am curious, please post one example here.

 

As for Quarks and other imaginary particles claimed by QM, I have found a much simpler stellar fusion process that eliminates all of them and yet fully provides the basis for atoms.

 

Yet experimental evidence for the existence of these particles abounds.  They leave tracks in cloud chambers, they decay into other easily detected particles etc. How do you explain this away? And remember that QM does not 'claim' anything. It is a set of postulates that explain the behavior of matter in the real world. In many cases it has predicted things unknown to science and those predictions have led to experiment which has confirmed the predictions. The latest of these would be the Higgs boson (existence almost confirmed). It is, clearly, a very good model.

 

My current model uses a solid nucleus surrounded by a single layer of captured photons to represent what is called the electron cloud.

 

Using this model, you can find a very simple geometric progression through the atoms identified to date along with their stable and unstable isotopes.

 

How would such a model explain the energy released by fission? Or beta decay? Or the abundant experimental evidence of protons, neutrons, quarks, gluons etc.?

 

 

Most of the QM related ideas are very questionable..

 

Which ones?

...and several of the constants are in fact completely in error. Plancks constant being one.

 

Obviously, then, you have measured it and found a different value. How did you do that and what did you get for the correct number

 

I would like to move this discussion off line as I think you might have the understanding of the detail level that I need to help resolve how my model can better support science.

 

I will send you a contact request, if you would like to explore my new view of subatomic and atomic structures, just accept and send me a private message.

 

 

It isn't me that you need to convince. It is the scientific community. That's why I suggest a visit to the physics department at the nearest university or correspondence with them. Furthermore, I am not qualified to compare your model to the Standard Model. I know more about FInno-Ugric than I do about non-Abelian gauge theory.  I am familiar with some aspects of modern physics and with even this limited understanding it is clear to me from your posts that you are not familiar enough with it to posit valid criticisms of the Standard Model (nor to the underlying quantum mechanics). New models will eventually emerge, of course (with a Unified Field Theory being the holy grail) but the probability that yours will replace Standard Model is doubtless less than Planck's constant (6.6E-34).

Perhaps, but I know that so far I can account for most of the observable objects and I have a solid process for how a star can make everything we have actually verified.

As for Planck, he said when he published his paper that his constant was only valid between photons of between 1 and 3 microns.  Using his constant beyond that range has never been verified to my knowledge and yet it is a cornerstone of QM.

As for sharing my ideas with academia I am doing so.  So far most just want to defend the faith rather than discuss the possible implications of the solutions I have proposed.

I had hoped that you were open minded enough to discuss the chemistry aspects of my ideas, but I understand if you do not want to spend the time.

Meanwhile, I will continue to refine my ideas to the point where I can present them to the academic community, but I also know that  the road ahead is very steep.

DAB

Please try to understand that physicists are for the most part reasonable people and that when you say in one post that the particles 'claimed' by QM are 'imaginary' even though they, even now the Higgs, have been demonstrated, and then in the next that you can explain how they arise with your model you tax your credibility. Also when you say that Plank's constant hasn't been verified for photons of wavelengths outside the range 1 - 3 µ to your knowledge you are advertising that your knowledge is extremely limited and in concluding that just because it hasn't been verified outside that range it must be wrong you are exhibiting irrational thinking because clearly as h is a cornerstone of quantum theory if there were a question as to whether the value were valid outside a particular range someone would have checked on this and, of course, people have snd verified it.  You can verify the value of Plank's constant yourself (to within better than 1% if you are careful) in the 0.4 to 0.6 µ range on your kitchen table using nothing more than a voltmeter, a milliammeter, a battery, a potentiometer (or adjustable power supply) and a couple of LEDs. These two things alone, but especially when taken with some of your other statements, are enough to convince me that there is no basis for rational discussion, and I think you will just have to accept that most other knowledgeable people (even those at my limited level) will come to the same conclusion. You also have to understand that such people are naturally going to defend the quantum model as it has been demonstrated over and over again that it is a very robust model being able to explain what has been seen and predict what has not. Why wouldn't they defend it? It's good! At the same time if there is any real evidence that there is a flaw in the quantum model any of these guys would want to be in on the ground floor of the discovery of that fact because a Nobel prize would be guaranteed. The fact that you did not know that the Planck constant has been verified from DC to daylight and beyond way into the gamma range is not credible evidence that the quantum theory is flawed and if you use 'evidence' like that you are, naturally, going to get the cold shoulder.

Chemists are really only concerned with the quantum aspect of nature insofar as it enables them to predict the shapes of atomic electron orbitals and combine them to get molecular orbitals which explain bonding. There are a couple of models which are based on this and some which aren't.

Although this discussion is, I hope, at an end the following is just too interesting not to share as everyone here is, presumably, involved in electronics one way or another. Whilst researching modern methods of measuring Plank's constant I discovered that the definition of the Volt in use since 1990 (shows you how up to date on this stuff I am) is based on the ratio of Planck's constant to the charge on the electron and the present day definition of the Ohm on the ratio of Planck's constant to the square of the electronic charge. The ampere and watt are, thus, also based on these two fundamental physical constants and it looks as if the kilogram will soon be too thus eliminating the last of the artifact based unit of measure. We'd better hope they have the value right!  Actually, the choice of the value for Planck's constant is somewhat arbitrary. BIPM will choose a value (close to the current value in SI units) and the chosen value will then define the size of the Volt, Ohm, Ampere, Watt, killogram etc. (all will be close to the sizes of the current SI units). What we better hope is that the ratios  e/h and h/e^2 are precisely known (and, of course, they are to ppb). I'll also comment that the voltage sources used to calibrate voltmeters to the highest level of accuracy (primary standards) use a quantum device, the Josephson junction, in which current 'flows' through an insulating layer by quantum mechanical tunneling.

Actually with your indulgence I would like to continue the discussions.

I have not had a real chemist to discuss these types of issues with and I would really like to hear your perspective about the various quantum mechanic structures and how they impact your work/research..

I always viewed Chemistry like engineering, you find tools and equations that get results and then you don't worry too much about the detail.

I am interested in your view of the quantum tunneling.

I think that a better way to view charge flow is by the exchange of photons between the atoms.  I have never seen anyone demonstrate that you can pull an entire electron, or its equivalent from an atom and exchange it with adjacent atoms.

It makes more sense that the photon exchange can move the equivalent charge and mass across the potential region.  If you look at the tunneling effect as a photon flow, you can better understand how the charge can be initiated by very small voltage changes.

As I recall, doesn't the Josephson Junction require extremely low temperatures to work?

My analysis of superconductors indicates that as you lower the number of photons in the electron cloud, the atoms will reach a point in which it cannot accept any additional photons, hence the great increase in conductivity as the photon exchange can occur without the normal absorption and emission cycle.

DAB

 

 

I have not had a real chemist to discuss these types of issues with and I would really like to hear your perspective about the various quantum mechanic structures and how they impact your work/research..

 

If you are interested in things like bond formation I think you probably want a physical chemist rather than a chemist or a physicist and again I suggest a local college or university. I am neither (retired electrical engineer).

 

I always viewed Chemistry like engineering, you find tools and equations that get results and then you don't worry too much about the detail.

 

As an engineer I have always pretty much approached it in the same way. In my daily application of it I am more concerned with things like the equilibrium concentrations of species in solutions that aren't quite dilute and as such have found that some knowledge of physical chemistry is very helpful. WRT this thread knowing a bit of p-chem helps one understand how a pH, ISE or DO sensor works.

I am interested in your view of the quantum tunneling.

As I said earlier I have had some exposure to modern physics. I understand at the highest level the mechanism of quantum tunneling. If a particle is confined by an energy barrier and has less energy than the height of that barrier classical mechanics says it is confined. The solution of the Schroedinger equation, however, shows that the wave function has finite amplitude outside the barrier and that there is, therefore, a finite probability that the particle is not contained. Electrons which have tunneled in respectively, a Josepson junction, Esaki diode or tunneling electron microscope give rise to detectable currents which can be put to practical use (respectively voltage standard, amplifier, image formation at the atomic level). That's about the extent of my view. I haven't seen an Esaki diode since I was a child. You will get more from Wikipedia on this (or better yet a textbook on quantum physics) than from me.

I think that a better way to view charge flow is by the exchange of photons between the atoms.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Exchange of 'virtual' photons between particles mediates the electromagnetic force in the Standard Model but that doesn't lead to charge transfer. Virtual photons do not carry charge any more than real ones do (way out of my depth here). Virtual photons can decay into particles that do but the net charge on those particles must be 0 e.g. a photon can decay into an oppositely charged quark, anti-quark pair.

I have never seen anyone demonstrate that you can pull an entire electron, or its equivalent from an atom and exchange it with adjacent atoms.

I don't know what you mean here. How can one transfer part of an electron?  It is a fundamental particle not subdivisible under current theory but who knows what may be discovered in the future.

You can demonstrate transfer of entire electrons pretty easily. Go turn on an electric light. When current flows electrons move throughout the metal atom lattice in the wires. Measure the resistance of a diode with an ohm meter. The current flows as electrons move from lattice defect to lattice defect in the semiconductor materials. If you can find one, fire up a vacuum tube. Electrons are boiled off the cathode and migrate to the anode.

If you are referring to transfer of electrons by tunneling then the Josephson junction, Esaki diode and tunneling electron microscopes demonstrate transfer of whole electrons by the tunneling mechanism.

It makes more sense that the photon exchange can move the equivalent charge and mass across the potential region. If you look at the tunneling effect as a photon flow, you can better understand how the charge can be initiated by very small voltage changes.

As I noted above exchange of photons mediates the electromagnetic force but those are 'virtual' photons. Real photons cannot transfer charge as they have none not can they transfer mass as they haven't any mass either. In a tunneling electron microscope it is electrons that are found at the tip of the probe. No photons are detected. So no, it does not make more sense that photons are exchanged. At least not to me. If you are speaking of the exchange of virtual photons you are way beyond me and should really be talking to a particle physicist.

 

As I recall, doesn't the Josephson Junction require extremely low temperatures to work?

Yes. It is two slabs of superconductor separated by an insulating layer.

My analysis of superconductors indicates that as you lower the number of photons in the electron cloud, the atoms will reach a point in which it cannot accept any additional photons, hence the great increase in conductivity as the photon exchange can occur without the normal absorption and emission cycle.

 

Are you confusing phonons with photons?

 

 

I have not had a real chemist to discuss these types of issues with and I would really like to hear your perspective about the various quantum mechanic structures and how they impact your work/research..

 

If you are interested in things like bond formation I think you probably want a physical chemist rather than a chemist or a physicist and again I suggest a local college or university. I am neither (retired electrical engineer).

 

I always viewed Chemistry like engineering, you find tools and equations that get results and then you don't worry too much about the detail.

 

As an engineer I have always pretty much approached it in the same way. In my daily application of it I am more concerned with things like the equilibrium concentrations of species in solutions that aren't quite dilute and as such have found that some knowledge of physical chemistry is very helpful. WRT this thread knowing a bit of p-chem helps one understand how a pH, ISE or DO sensor works.

I am interested in your view of the quantum tunneling.

As I said earlier I have had some exposure to modern physics. I understand at the highest level the mechanism of quantum tunneling. If a particle is confined by an energy barrier and has less energy than the height of that barrier classical mechanics says it is confined. The solution of the Schroedinger equation, however, shows that the wave function has finite amplitude outside the barrier and that there is, therefore, a finite probability that the particle is not contained. Electrons which have tunneled in respectively, a Josepson junction, Esaki diode or tunneling electron microscope give rise to detectable currents which can be put to practical use (respectively voltage standard, amplifier, image formation at the atomic level). That's about the extent of my view. I haven't seen an Esaki diode since I was a child. You will get more from Wikipedia on this (or better yet a textbook on quantum physics) than from me.

I think that a better way to view charge flow is by the exchange of photons between the atoms.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Exchange of 'virtual' photons between particles mediates the electromagnetic force in the Standard Model but that doesn't lead to charge transfer. Virtual photons do not carry charge any more than real ones do (way out of my depth here). Virtual photons can decay into particles that do but the net charge on those particles must be 0 e.g. a photon can decay into an oppositely charged quark, anti-quark pair.

I have never seen anyone demonstrate that you can pull an entire electron, or its equivalent from an atom and exchange it with adjacent atoms.

I don't know what you mean here. How can one transfer part of an electron?  It is a fundamental particle not subdivisible under current theory but who knows what may be discovered in the future.

You can demonstrate transfer of entire electrons pretty easily. Go turn on an electric light. When current flows electrons move throughout the metal atom lattice in the wires. Measure the resistance of a diode with an ohm meter. The current flows as electrons move from lattice defect to lattice defect in the semiconductor materials. If you can find one, fire up a vacuum tube. Electrons are boiled off the cathode and migrate to the anode.

If you are referring to transfer of electrons by tunneling then the Josephson junction, Esaki diode and tunneling electron microscopes demonstrate transfer of whole electrons by the tunneling mechanism.

It makes more sense that the photon exchange can move the equivalent charge and mass across the potential region. If you look at the tunneling effect as a photon flow, you can better understand how the charge can be initiated by very small voltage changes.

As I noted above exchange of photons mediates the electromagnetic force but those are 'virtual' photons. Real photons cannot transfer charge as they have none not can they transfer mass as they haven't any mass either. In a tunneling electron microscope it is electrons that are found at the tip of the probe. No photons are detected. So no, it does not make more sense that photons are exchanged. At least not to me. If you are speaking of the exchange of virtual photons you are way beyond me and should really be talking to a particle physicist.

 

As I recall, doesn't the Josephson Junction require extremely low temperatures to work?

Yes. It is two slabs of superconductor separated by an insulating layer.

My analysis of superconductors indicates that as you lower the number of photons in the electron cloud, the atoms will reach a point in which it cannot accept any additional photons, hence the great increase in conductivity as the photon exchange can occur without the normal absorption and emission cycle.

 

Are you confusing phonons with photons?

Hi Andrew,

When I talk about photons, I am describing an object with two similarly sized mass objects entangled during stellar fusion.  The mass and charge of the two objects determine the vibration frequency, with the smalles working at about 10^40 Hz.

My analysis showed that stellar fusion begins much earlier than the formation of Protons or objects larger.

Photons are part of that process.

When I refer to photon flow from atom to atom, I am convinced that it better represents the movement of current over conductors.  It also better explain how you can have very small current flow at very low voltages.

I have also resolved that what everyone calls an electron particle does not exist.  Instead, you have a shell of captured photons around the atomic nucleus.  This view explains why Heisenberg could not find the position of an electron particle.

As a retired electrical engineer, I think you would find my theory very interesting.  It answers most of the mysteries of QM without needing to resort to "Potentially" imaginary particles.

If I am correct, then the LHC results are all invalid due to the Proton being composed by a whole lot of very small particles.  Using my Proton model, I can account for all of the measurements without the need to resort to all of the particles claimed by any of the colliders.

DAB

I'm sure your theory is very interesting but as I am an old guy I fear I don't have the time to learn a whole new physics. Afraid the physics I know, which have served me well for my entire life, are just going to have to do for the rest of it.

Understand,

Since I retired I was forced to take is slow due to a disability, but then I got this crazy idea and the more I worked on it, the more it looked like it would work.

I described my ideas to may friend, and he got interested, so now both of us are working down at the subatomic level and we think we understand what is really going on and it is so simple it is elegantly easy.

For proof, we have just been using the experimental data of others, which is kind of interesting in its own right as sometimes the conclusions they made have alternative explanations, which our model predicts.

So take it easy.

If you get bored, you know where to find me.

DAB