Dear Dr. Verma,

Once again, please, calm down. Try not to take it all personal. Whatever is the nature of
actions you would like to perform in front of me, please read this first.

(1) You are wrong, stating that there is no bicarbonate and OH ion in their ionic force
expression. To check this out you need to:
a) write the full equation (7) from Halas's et al. reply, including all the species,
b)  put there m(Na+) + m(H+) + 2m(CO32-) instead of m(HCO3-) + 4m(CO32-) + m(OH-), according
to their eqn (1).
You end up with their equation (8) which clearly DOES INCLUDE bicarbonate and OH terms,
although indirectly.

(2) As it can be clearly seen from their Reply, activity is calculated according to eqn (51)
on page 246 in Truesdell and Jones (1974).

(3) There is no need to comment on your numerical analysis remarks or any other ad personam
arguments.

I suggest we do not occupy the Isogeochem server any more for this subject.

Regards,

Tomasz


Mahendra Pal Verma wrote:

> Dear Tomasz,
>
> We try to understand science or we are just trying to justify ourselves. It is good
> that  I am not infront of you, otherwise....
> OK, give me chance, by Next Monday I will do the calculation using the activity approach
> and show you that both the methods (approximation to molar concentration and activity)
> provide the same results as I presented. In the meantime please look on the points I
> presented. (1) Think why there is no bicarbonate and OH terms in the ionic force
> expression. (2) How Halas et al got the activity of water in the solution to 0.98? (3)
> How precisely can we analyze chemical species in a solution to correct isotopic
> analysis? Oh, Newton's method is also an approximation method. You should use some
> analytical (exact) solution for this. Newton's method is just an approximation method to
> solve an algebraic equation. It is used in PHREEQ. There are many more numerical methods
> to work out this problem. Read some book on numerical analysis.
>
> But promise me if both methods give same results for this problem, you will change your
> wordings. You want me to work on this problem. Please reply me first the above mentioned
> points like a scientist with fundamental arguments.
>
> looking forward to your reply
>
> Mahendra