>To be clear, Nishroch Order was responding to someone who mentioned >an “electric spark in a vacuum.” You can’t have a spark in a vacuum, like he said, >but you can have electron flow, like you said.
Actually, if you read it again, you’ll see that he stated he didn’t think current could flow in a vacuum. I even quoted that part.
Here i am! haha this slight hijack is getting bigger.
Well, i did state no medium. If electrons are flying around than that wouldnt technically be a vacuum right? Mainly, I was trying to show that electricity isnt quite like light(of lightning spark). As in, you cant see it in real vacuum.
Yes of cos current can travel in vacuum(via electrons carrying the potential).
Should have been clearer, anyway yes its important to point out ;).
When you call something a “chemical” all you are doing is specifying its use to bring about a known result.
Chemistry is the study of the composition, properties and reactions of a substance. Since waters properties are “known”, it can be used as a “chemical” to cause a known reaction. It becomes a “chemical” whenever you knowingly use it to cause a change.
You’re correct that much of the light we see coming from a spark, even in a moderate vacuum, comes from electronic transitions of ionized gases. However, you don’t need ionized gases to see electrons. You can see electrons in a vacuum any time they change energy levels by emitting a photon. That atomless emission is used to great effect in the design of free electron lasers.
The first part of your statement is correct (more on it later), but what’s this about my link going to a “school’s site”? The link goes to an educational site set up for schools by U.S. Geological Survey*****. I take it that you are saying that calling water “the universal solvent” is a simplistic term that was used to make it easier for elementary children. I challenge that and other posts supporting that contention.
Here is a quote that supports the first part of your statement from Anecdotage.com.
So there is no such thing as a truly universal solvent. That does not mean that scientists and others have not referred to water by that term. A google search will produce the following sites.
[ul][li] The Universal Solvent[/li][li] Water - The most “Universal Solvent” known.[/li][li] The Nature of Water[/ul][/li]
The Nature of Water makes this statement:
It not only supports your statement but also shows that in lieu of a true universal solvent; water is considered the solvent that most nearly meets the criterion (and not for just 3rd graders).
It would be quite sad if water were a truly universal solvent. 
This question wasn’t that complicated!!!
[sup]Opps, sorry.[/sup]
Yes NurseCarmen, water is a chemical. … oh… its already been answered.
Technically, you aren’t seeing an electron, you are seeing a photon.
Is that a useful distinction? Technically, photons are the only thing you can see.
It could only happen here.
Fifty+ reponses to a question to which the answer is:
Yes.
Technically, about the only things you ever see are photons, cosmic rays (in space), and posphenes produced by direct stimulation of the optic nerve.