3

There's a very nice—and fairly accessible—discussion of your third question in Nature Magazine's News and Views Section[1]. In this article, Bonn discusses the results of a fairly recent work that appeared in Physical Review X[2]. Bonn summarizes the key points as follows: The idea that a thin film of meltwater wets the surface of ice has been accepted ...


2

The (+) and (-) refers to the flow of electrons in the power supply. In a galvanic (Voltaic) cell, the cell itself is the power supply. In an electrolytical cell, the cell is attached to an external power supply. So while the designation of anode and cathode is directly linked to the direction of the flow of electrons in a cell, how (+) and (-) relate to ...


2

Since your experimental observation with copper salts negates your original hypothesis, it implies that the way you are trying to explain it is wrong. The main culprit and the source of all these problems is the color wheel which is taught in schools. Misconceptions persist for long. When you are looking at the copper solutions in two different settings, it ...


1

The process in question is presumably adiabatic, since we are told that the temperature changes and are not given any information about the temperature of the surroundings (adiabaticity can also sometimes be assumed if gases are mixed rapidly). Secondly, the final volume of the system (the entire container) is the same as the initial volume (and in addition ...


1

The issue is: what parameters can we introduce? As for changing the form of the trial wavefunction to something else to achieve a lower energy, this is prohibited by the variational principle, which HF theory satisfies. In short (and within the context of Hartree-Fock), the variational principle guarantees that any given trial function will produce an energy ...


1

The problem is that you are starting the derivation from conditions that ensure reversibility or spontaneity, but you are not considering conditions that lead to the third possibility. The following expression from your post is generally true: $dq-dq_{rev}=dw_{rev}-dw $ I've dropped the "irreversible" labels and assume that $dq$ and $dw$ refer to ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible