Ongoing discussion for students in Chemistry III

Please abide by the following when posting to this blog:
1) no profanity & no attacking another's perspectives
2) for each claim or idea that you put forth, justify your idea with at least two SOLID pieces of evidence & coherent reasoning (more evidence presents a stronger argument)
3) feel free to disagree and/or agree with each other, however know that you need to justify why you feel or think the way you do
4) any questionable content will not be posted
5) feel free to add topic-specific or claim-specific links, URLs, and images in your posts

Monday, October 10, 2011




Thermo-chemistry is the study of energy and heat when associated with chemical reactions as well as physical changes. These reactions can release or take in energy and each system always has an energy exchange with its surroundings. We are very dependent upon thermo-chemistry external to our bodies and all they provide us including electricity, simple light, and electronics. We also use many photoemmitters such as ultra violet and x- ray. Photoemmitters are defined as the emission of electrons due to the impact of electromagnetic radiation. This basically means the releasing of electrons because of energy that gives off wave like behavior as it passes through space. If I were to redesign New York City using only one type of photoemitter I would use Chemiluminescence. Chemiluminescence is the emission of light due to a chemical reaction. One of the most common examples you see of it is when luminal reacts with iron to make a luminescent reaction (one with light). When a team of forensic specialists want to find blood at a scene of crime, they spray luminal because the iron in the blood with makes it light up in the dark, this is a simple example of Chemiluminescence. Some of the upsides of this include that you don’t need an external power source, so no electricity is needed. This means that in the case of New York we could save a lot of power as well as a lot of energy being used through electricity; this would also save people a lot of money. Also by using less electricity we are going green and burning less fossil fuel for our needs. Another pro to Chemiluminescence is that you don’t need wires to use it as a source of light. Chemiluminescence also works in a wet environment; this is good because this means we can use it under water or inside a living person. Since it works in wet environments it can be used as a light source in Central Park as well as street lights in the city because it does not require any wires, it would be easy to set up making it cost efficient as well. The fact that it can get wet is also good for when it rains. Since it can also be put inside a human being, the medical world could use to see when someone has internal bleeding. This can also be very good for lighting up Yankee stadium during night games. Those big lights use a lot of energy and electricity which can be saved if we use this kind of lighting instead.

Some of the cons include little or no heat is generated, so we can’t use it instead of a heater or in colder climates as a warming mechanism. Another con is that there is a very limited frequency range in which light is produced and it also has a low luminosity (low light, or brightness)


Above are pictures of glow sticks. Even as children we have seen what Chemiluminescence can do but we never understood that the light didn’t come from a bulb or from some sort of battery but from a mixture of chemicals. As seen above and form what we know. These glow sticks don’t last forever and are not extremely bright, but they do stand out in the dark, which would be very helpful o a place like New York. This also shows us that we can use Chemiluminescence for glowing signs we often see outside of stores or the flashing letter that light up outside of Duane Reade. These simple things use a lot of our electricity which is not good for our environment and through the use of Chemiluminescence we can cut down our use of this energy dramatically.

Another marketing technique you could use to promote this would be that it would save energy as well as money for the government. The government spends a lot of money a year to light up the streets as well as highways and using this system they would have to spend less on that in general.


5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Miloni, I like your post overall, but i feel as though bioluminescence is better because it can emit light farther than chemiluminescence which would require less lights therefore being more cost effective.

Anonymous said...

Miloni- I like your reasoning and the idea. However, I think that bioluminescence would be a better choice. Chemiluminescence requires chemicals and therefore would be less effective.

Anonymous said...

Miloni, i think your idea because it is very practical and useful in the long run, because although it may be more expensive then other choices, it it more practical to use chemicals as opposed to living animals and plants for light which would be very unrelyable.

Anonymous said...

Miloni, I agree that it would not only be more economical to use chemicals for light (as well as better for animals and plant-life), but at the same time, it may not be very practical, because as you said yourself, the light is very low and it is not possible to produce heat from it, something we need in the cold New York winters.

Anonymous said...

Hey Miloni, your post was really interesting and had good reasoning but I still think that bioluminescence would be a better choice of lighting. As you said, chemiluminescence only releases a low amount of light, which wouldn't be as helpful in a city that is always busy (even at night).