[arealperson]

Hi,

I kinda new to chemistry, and I have a need to be specific in my approach to learning.

Question:

What are some of the more simple ways (cost effective as possiable) to detect carbon in a substance in the form of a powder ?
Detecting it in a liquid would also be helpful, but detection in a powder is more important for me.

Thanks for the help,

[Corribus]

More information is needed. What form of carbon? Elemental or in organic molecules? What level of sensitivity is needed? And so on.

[Irlanur]

heat it without oxygen could be a possibility...

[arealperson]

Ok,

Carbon powder, carbon solid, carbon in a general basic solution like Water or a simple generic liquid. NOT A GAS
I'm more interested in testing a powder and/or solid much less dense that diamond.

All I get when I google is how to detect Carbon Monoxide.
This is for Organic Carbon, which is not what I need. Plus, it looks over complicated for such an abundant atom.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed021p37.1

Carbon rod material used in brush motors, Graphite etc., other general carbon powders or
Consider all the atoms that are bound to be carbon atoms.

Think in abstract terms, carbon is an atom which can bond to other carbon atoms.

So it's in-organic (right).

What is the simplest test for the presence of carbon atoms joined in any type of bond.

Sensitivity does not matter, because its all suspect to be carbon.

Basic test = Is or is not carbon detected - Simple.

How can that be done cost effective ?
*---------------
I have much to learn, but I do understand atoms and ionic, Cov... and Hydro bonding, crystal forms of lattice structure etc.
I also understand electrical gV of electrons/ strong - weak force etc..., etc.

But I don't know how to cook.

What would be the result of "heat it without oxygen"
An orange flash ? What would indicate carbon was detected ?

This is 101 stuff, someone should be able to answer, or explain why the question is logicly faulty in logical layman terms.

Thanks,

[curiouscat]

Burn it in O2. Detect the CO2.

[arealperson]

Thanks !

And remember, If the lawn mower will not start.

Always check if it has gas before tearing down the motor !

 

Process is important, It's not what you do, Its the way you do it that really matters.

I actually believe that process is more important than what you are trying to do !

Ua... CO2 is a Gas. 

[Arkcon]

Sorry.  But you still haven't told us enough.  Also, some of the things you say are too cute -- carbon is insoluble in water, and is very difficult to vaporize.  Yes, your logic is faulty, because you're forcing us in to the most basic terms, and demanding we don't speak in technical terms.

Briefly, you seem to want to know if you have carbon powder -- not diamond, but instead maybe graphite or amorphous carbon.  Of the sort used in composites, or in electromotive brushes.  But what else is in there -- that's just as important.  You say sensitivity isn't important -- if that's true, then you can't prove me wrong when I say one atom per ton.

I have much to learn, but I do understand atoms and ionic, Cov... and Hydro bonding, crystal forms of lattice structure etc.
I also understand electrical gV of electrons/ strong - weak force etc..., etc.

Really?  I don't understand the strong and weak force very well at all.  I know they don't effect chemistry.  Do you know that?  This bit right there is just a cute collection of buzz words.  That's not how we'll solve your problem.

And yes, a canonical test for a child's chemistry set for carbon is to react it with oxygen, bubble the resulting gas through a solution of lime water, and use the resulting turbidity to state that carbon is present.

If you want to be more quantitative, combustion analysis is likewise possible.  The detection in that case is often a GC with either a thermal conductivity detector or infrared spectroscopy detector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion_analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHN_analyzer

[arealperson]

Ok,

It seems like my question is to complex.

Lets try this example, and see if there is an answer.

Take the center "carbon rod" out of a Heavy Duty Battery.

Question:
What is the simplest way to test this for carbon without converting it to a gas ?

End of question.

*---
If I'm understanding all the struggling to understand my question, it would be because it's not possible to detect carbon
in the center rod removed from a Heavy Duty Battery?

I don't know what all else is in that rod, If I knew I would not need to test it ? I'm only interested in detecting carbon
other detections are ok, I will only look for carbon detection.

*---

I'm sorry if that question is to vague. How would a High School Student Do it ?

*---
Also, I'm sorry, I thought nuclear force, protons, electrons and the forces that govern them were important to chemistry.

I do think there is at least a bridge between nano technology and chemistry and nano technology will never progress
without exploring quantum and sub-atomic details.


But, then again, I don't claim to be a chemist. I'm just a high school student, who must do this as a science project.
But, you really should not need to know all that to answer my question.

Are there not some chemicals so that I can scrape off some of the rods powder with, then do some process and detect carbon
in any way except converting to gas ?

If I had access to STM I could almost visually identify carbon atoms (almost) ? And you saying it's not possible ?

Thanks,

[Arkcon]

What has your research so far told you about common reaction of carbon?  What instrumental analytical methods have you heard of for detecting a pure element in general, and carbon in particular?

Did you try your text book?  Or maybe the Wikipedia entry for carbon.  What have you learned so far.

This forum isn't a "dump complete answers forum", we like to help students learn, step by step.  Unfortunately, simple definitions aren't something we can help you learn.  You either read it, or you haven't.  If you haven't you either try to read it, or we tell you the answer.  And we don't do that here.

Also, I'm sorry, I thought nuclear force, protons, electrons and the forces that govern them were important to chemistry.

I do think there is at least a bridge between nano technology and chemistry and nano technology will never progress
without exploring quantum and sub-atomic details.

Do you have a reference you can cite for either of those two statements?  If you don't, then maybe you'd like to withdraw them, and more statements like them, from further discussion.

[arealperson]

Soot is a fullerene, It is a nano particle, a carbon allotrope, just as Graphite, or Carbon rods.
it has a definable lattice structure as do all allotropes.

This forum isn't a "dump complete answers forum", we like to help students learn, step by step.  Unfortunately, simple definitions aren't something we can help you learn.  You either read it, or you haven't.  If you haven't you either try to read it, or we tell you the answer.  And we don't do that here.

"dump complete answers forum" - There has been NO information of any kind provided except, Da, We dont understand Da.
your question, Just admit, YOU DONT KNOW - because you lack education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene

There's your reference.

And here's a good dose of common sense to go with it.

No one has even mentioned any process like Electrochemistry, Or prehaps using some way to use the source as seed
for growing crystals of carbon.

You may have more friends on this form to jump to your defense, but..
No, Sir, It's people like you who think your to good to offer help. I'm a novice, and obviously by your arrogance.

It's your POMP lack to enguage and share ideas that prevent progress. If you don't understand a question
it's probably because of the way you think about the problem and your own inability to think outside the box.

The stimulation of valid scientific conversation no mater the relevance has value. You should always strive to provide
YOUR answer based on your interpretation, instead of simply being stagnant with "Oh, your to vague" You can always
say "based on my understanding the the question". Oh, unless your arrogance gets in the way, then you can't answer
because of a closed mind.

@Arkcon - You need to learn how to use abstract thinking better, it's a powerful tool when you can use it
deliberately, it will help you overcome your inability to understand more generalized questions and how to respond to them
in a less stagnet way than saying -- "Sorry, your to vague".

People, you can do better in your mindsets.

[Borek]

Soot is a fullerene

No, soot contains some fullerene, that's not the same.

You came here asking poorly defined questions, once Arkcon tried to clarify what you are really asking about, you decided it is time to call him arrogant and uneducated. That's not a way of asking for help.

Topic locked. As moderator Arckon can unlock it if he wants to discuss your question further with you, but I am not going to tolerate your kind of approach on the forum.