Dilution is the solution to pollution

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

If I wait long enough will the N and P in my tank spontaneously remove itself via Hawkings Radiation. . .

Needless to say my understanding of quantum mechanics is limited . . .

If you wait long enough, there will come a time where every nitrate and phosphate simultaneously tunnels through the glass and deposits outside the tank, leaving everything else inside. However, I do not think the universe is likely to last that long.

 

[Miami Reef]

If you wait long enough, there will come a time where every nitrate and phosphate simultaneously tunnels through the glass and deposits outside the tank, leaving everything else inside. However, I do not think the universe is likely to last that long.

Why would this happen? Would it also happen in acrylic tanks? What process would cause that to happen?

I know it’s theoretical.

 

[scotty333]

Jeez what have I started

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Why would this happen? Would it also happen in acrylic tanks? What process would cause that to happen?

I know it’s theoretical.

Tunneling is a very advanced idea that essentially says there’s a miniscule chance of a particle getting through a barrier that it does not normally have the energy to do. It has little application at the macroscopic scale due to the huge unlikelihood of it even happening once. So I said it entirely as a nerdy joke.

This explains it more:

Quantum tunnelling - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[MoshJosh]

If you wait long enough, there will come a time where every nitrate and phosphate simultaneously tunnels through the glass and deposits outside the tank, leaving everything else inside. However, I do not think the universe is likely to last that long.

Ye of little faith!

 

[BeanAnimal]

Will this break the buffer system?

 

[Miami Reef]

Tunneling is a very advanced idea that essentially says there’s a miniscule chance of a particle getting through a barrier that it does not normally have the energy to do. It has little application at the macroscopic scale due to the huge unlikelihood of it even happening once. So I said it entirely as a nerdy joke.

This explains it more:

Quantum tunnelling - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It’s kind of like if you stick your finger in the wall just at the right moment, your finger can go through it. I think it has something to do with atoms or protons moving, and if you enter it at just the right time, you can go through objects. The probability of that actually happening is very, very low, but not impossible.

 

[X-37B]

The solution to pollution is dilution, lol.
That brings back many memories from the late 70's before regulations kicked in.
I have many stories from that time period when I worked in the PCB industry.
Many companies just dumped their spent solutions down the drain and left the water on to dilute said chemistry.
Sad but sometimes reality is, lol.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I mean that is better than working the in PCB industry and dumping them down the drain.

 

[X-37B]

I mean that is better than working the in PCB industry and dumping them down the drain.

?
I did work in the industry and companies did dump many chemiclas down the drain
Fish and game caught one company and they were recovering gold down stream as proof.
All the gold and silver soultions were sodium cyanide solutions.
Pretty nasty stuff.

 

[BeanAnimal]

?
I did work in the industry and companies did dump many chemiclas down the drain
Fish and game caught one company and they were recovering gold down stream as proof.
All the gold and silver soultions were sodium cyanide solutions.
Pretty nasty stuff.

Before there were Printed Circuit Boards (late 30s or early 40s?)
We had Polychlorinated biphenyls (late 20s banned in late 70s?)
They were EVERYWHERE and don't break down.

So it was kinda of a play on what you said. Polychlorinated biphenyls are nasty stuff, arguably far worse than the metals (mostly copper and tin but certainly some lead) and sulfates that are a byproduct of Printed Circuit Board manufacturing.

 

[X-37B]

Before there were Printed Circuit Boards (late 30s or early 40s?)
We had Polychlorinated biphenyls (late 20s banned in late 70s?)
They were EVERYWHERE and don't break down.

So it was kinda of a play on what you said. Polychlorinated biphenyls are nasty stuff, arguably far worse than the metals (mostly copper and tin but certainly some lead) and sulfates that are a byproduct of Printed Circuit Board manufacturing.

Ok cool got it.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Ok cool got it.

I have dabbled with DIY PCBs for a long time but had a client (I owned an IT company) that was a PCB fab.

I was fascinated at the process, not so much the manufacture or plating, but the inspection and testing of boards and stuffed board. Powerful Microscopes, Automated optical inspection, flying probes, complex TDR test equipment, thermal imagining... all kinds of crazy stuff. But walking in the door, I thought it was just image, mask, etch, plate.

Anyway - cool stuff. Back to dilution.

 

[scotty333]

When performing water changes in a tank, each change removes a portion of the current water, not the original water. Thus, you cannot achieve exactly 100% with a finite number of changes. However, you can get arbitrarily close to 100%.

Let's explore the process step by step:

1. After the first 25% water change, 75% of the original water remains.
2. After the second 25% water change, 75% of the remaining 75% of the original water remains, which is \( 75\% \times 75\% = 56.25\% \).
3. After the third 25% water change, 75% of the remaining 56.25% of the original water remains, which is \( 75\% \times 56.25\% = 42.1875\% \).

This pattern can be described mathematically as:

\[ (0.75)^n \]

where \( n \) is the number of water changes.

To find the number of changes needed to reduce the original water to less than 1% of its original amount, solve for \( n \):

\[ 0.75^n < 0.01 \]

Take the logarithm of both sides:

\[ n \log(0.75) < \log(0.01) \]

\[ n > \frac{\log(0.01)}{\log(0.75)} \]

Using a calculator to find the values of the logarithms:

\[ \log(0.01) = -2 \]
\[ \log(0.75) \approx -0.125 \]

Therefore:

\[ n > \frac{-2}{-0.125} \]
\[ n > 16 \]

So, it takes more than 16 changes to get the original water reduced to less than 1% of its original amount.

For practical purposes, performing 17 changes will reduce the original water to less than 1%:

\[ 0.75^{17} \approx 0.0098 \]

So, you need 17 changes to reduce the original water content to less than 1%, which is practically very close to 100% removal.