@classytic/stage 0.2.0 → 0.4.0

package/dist/electro/conductivity.mjs

@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+//#region src/electro/conductivity.ts
+/**
+* How well a solution conducts, and the three quantities that all get called "conductivity".
+*
+* ## Three quantities, three different questions
+*
+*   conductance G = 1/R                 this SAMPLE, in this cell.        siemens
+*   conductivity κ = G · (l/A)          this SOLUTION, cell removed.      S/cm
+*   molar conductivity Λm = κ / c       one MOLE of it, dilution removed. S·cm²/mol
+*
+* Each strips away one thing the one before it still depends on. Conductance depends on the
+* electrodes' spacing and area, so two labs measuring the same solution disagree. Conductivity
+* removes the cell through its geometry (l/A, the cell constant) and is a property of the
+* solution, but it still falls as the solution is diluted, simply because there are fewer ions.
+* Molar conductivity divides that out and asks what one mole contributes wherever it is.
+*
+* The payoff is the last one. Molar conductivity RISES on dilution, which sounds backwards until
+* you see it is measuring per mole while conductivity measures per volume. For a strong
+* electrolyte it rises a little and levels off, because the ions were already fully separated and
+* only get out of each other's way. For a weak one it climbs steeply without ever levelling,
+* because dilution is pushing its dissociation equilibrium further over: at ordinary
+* concentrations most of the acetic acid in a beaker is not ionised at all.
+*
+* That difference is the measurement's whole diagnostic value. It tells strong from weak
+* electrolytes without any chemistry beyond a resistance reading.
+*
+* ## Units, and the trap in them
+*
+* Everything here is in the CENTIMETRE units this topic is universally taught and examined in:
+* cm for the electrode spacing, cm² for the area, cm³ for volume, mol/dm³ for concentration. That
+* last one is the trap, because a concentration in mol/dm³ and a volume in cm³ differ by the
+* factor of 1000 that {@link molarConductivity} carries. Mixing the two is the commonest wrong
+* answer in the topic, and it is wrong by exactly a thousand, which is large enough to spot and
+* quiet enough to miss.
+*
+* Pure: no React, no pixels.
+*/
+/**
+* Cell constant l/A, in cm⁻¹: the geometry that turns a measured conductance into a property.
+*
+* Measured in practice rather than calculated, by putting a solution of known conductivity
+* (standard KCl) in the cell and reading what it gives. The electrodes are never quite the flat
+* parallel plates the formula assumes.
+*/
+const cellConstant = (separationCm, areaCm2) => separationCm / areaCm2;
+/** Conductance in siemens, the reciprocal of the measured resistance. */
+const conductance = (resistanceOhm) => 1 / resistanceOhm;
+/**
+* Conductivity κ in S/cm: the solution's own property, with the cell divided out.
+*
+* Also called specific conductance. It is the conductance a centimetre cube of the solution would
+* show between opposite faces, which is why the units carry a length.
+*/
+const conductivity = (resistanceOhm, cellConstantPerCm) => conductance(resistanceOhm) * cellConstantPerCm;
+/**
+* Molar conductivity Λm in S·cm²/mol, from conductivity and concentration in mol/dm³.
+*
+* The 1000 converts dm³ to cm³. It is not a fudge factor: κ is per cubic centimetre and c is per
+* cubic decimetre, and the conversion has to appear somewhere. Here, once, rather than in every
+* caller.
+*/
+const molarConductivity = (conductivityScm, concentrationMolPerDm3) => conductivityScm * 1e3 / concentrationMolPerDm3;
+/**
+* Equivalent conductivity in S·cm²/equivalent, for the older papers that ask for it.
+*
+* Same quantity per EQUIVALENT rather than per mole, so it differs by the number of charges the
+* formula unit carries. Sulfuric acid supplies two hydrogen ions per molecule, so a solution
+* 0.5 mol/dm³ in H₂SO₄ is 1 equivalent per cubic decimetre, and its equivalent conductivity is
+* half its molar conductivity. Worth keeping, because the two are quoted interchangeably in older
+* sources and differ by a factor nobody signposts.
+*/
+const equivalentConductivity = (conductivityScm, concentrationMolPerDm3, chargesPerFormulaUnit) => molarConductivity(conductivityScm, concentrationMolPerDm3) / chargesPerFormulaUnit;
+/**
+* Volume in cm³ holding one mole, from a concentration in mol/dm³.
+*
+* The form older texts state the relation in: Λm = κ · V. Same content as dividing by
+* concentration, and worth exposing because a question phrased with V is asking for this.
+*/
+const molarVolumeOfSolution = (concentrationMolPerDm3) => 1e3 / concentrationMolPerDm3;
+/**
+* Degree of dissociation from molar conductivity, against its value at infinite dilution.
+*
+* Arrhenius's ratio: at infinite dilution a weak electrolyte is fully dissociated, so how far
+* short of that a real solution falls is how far short of fully dissociated it is. This is the
+* measurement that makes "weak acid" a number rather than a word.
+*
+* Λ°m cannot be reached by extrapolating a weak electrolyte's own curve, because it is still
+* climbing steeply where the data runs out. It is assembled from ion conductivities instead, which
+* is what Kohlrausch's law is for.
+*/
+const degreeOfDissociation = (molar, atInfiniteDilution) => atInfiniteDilution === 0 ? 0 : molar / atInfiniteDilution;
+/**
+* Λ°m for an electrolyte from its separate ions (Kohlrausch's law of independent migration).
+*
+* At infinite dilution the ions are far enough apart to ignore each other entirely, so each
+* contributes the same amount whatever it arrived with. That independence is the claim, and it is
+* what lets a weak acid's Λ°m be assembled from strong-electrolyte measurements it could never be
+* extrapolated from directly.
+*/
+const limitingMolarConductivity = (cation, anion) => cation.conductivity * cation.count + anion.conductivity * anion.count;
+/**
+* The dissociation constant of a weak electrolyte from its conductivity (Ostwald's dilution law).
+*
+*     K = c α² / (1 − α)
+*
+* The bridge between an electrical measurement and an equilibrium constant, and the reason this
+* technique mattered historically: it gives Ka for an acid too weak to titrate accurately.
+*/
+const ostwaldConstant = (concentrationMolPerDm3, dissociation) => dissociation >= 1 ? Number.POSITIVE_INFINITY : concentrationMolPerDm3 * dissociation * dissociation / (1 - dissociation);
+/**
+* How far a weak electrolyte dissociates at a given concentration, from its constant.
+*
+* Ostwald's law run the other way, and the direction that actually gets used: the constant is the
+* fixed property and the concentration is what a learner changes. Solving cα² + Kα − K = 0 for the
+* positive root,
+*
+*     α = (−K + √(K² + 4cK)) / 2c
+*
+* written that way rather than as the textbook quadratic because the other arrangement subtracts
+* two nearly equal numbers when K is small, which is exactly the case here: cancellation would eat
+* most of the significant figures for an acid with a K of 10⁻⁵.
+*
+* This is what makes dilution visible. Acetic acid is about 1.3% ionised at 0.1 mol/dm³ and about
+* 13% at 0.001, so its molar conductivity climbs steeply on dilution while a strong electrolyte's
+* barely moves.
+*/
+function dissociationFromConstant(concentrationMolPerDm3, dissociationConstant) {
+	if (concentrationMolPerDm3 <= 0) return 1;
+	const k = dissociationConstant;
+	return (-k + Math.sqrt(k * k + 4 * concentrationMolPerDm3 * k)) / (2 * concentrationMolPerDm3);
+}
+/**
+* Molar conductivity of a STRONG electrolyte at a real concentration (Kohlrausch's √c law).
+*
+*     Λm = Λ°m − A√c
+*
+* A strong electrolyte is fully dissociated at every concentration, so its molar conductivity has
+* no dissociation to change. What little it loses on concentrating is the ions getting in each
+* other's way: an ion drags an oppositely charged atmosphere behind it, and the closer they are
+* packed the more it drags.
+*
+* That is the whole diagnostic. The square-root fall is gentle and levels off; a weak
+* electrolyte's rise does not level off at all, because its dissociation is still moving. Told
+* apart by the SHAPE of the curve, without knowing anything else about either substance.
+*/
+const strongMolarConductivity = (limiting, slope, concentrationMolPerDm3) => limiting - slope * Math.sqrt(concentrationMolPerDm3);
+/**
+* Molar conductivity of a WEAK electrolyte, which is its limit scaled by how far it has gone.
+*
+* Λm = α Λ°m, with α from the dissociation constant. The same statement as
+* {@link degreeOfDissociation} solved for the conductivity instead of the ratio.
+*/
+const weakMolarConductivity = (limiting, dissociationConstant, concentrationMolPerDm3) => limiting * dissociationFromConstant(concentrationMolPerDm3, dissociationConstant);
+
+//#endregion
+export { cellConstant, conductance, conductivity, degreeOfDissociation, dissociationFromConstant, equivalentConductivity, limitingMolarConductivity, molarConductivity, molarVolumeOfSolution, ostwaldConstant, strongMolarConductivity, weakMolarConductivity };

package/dist/electro/couples.d.mts

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+//#region src/electro/couples.d.ts
+/**
+ * Standard electrode potentials: the measured half of electrochemistry.
+ *
+ * ## One convention, stated once, and never a second table
+ *
+ * Every value here is a standard REDUCTION potential, written for the half-reaction running as
+ *
+ *     Ox + n e⁻ → Red        E° in volts, against the standard hydrogen electrode at 298.15 K
+ *
+ * That is the IUPAC convention and it is the only one stored. Oxidation potentials are the same
+ * numbers with the sign flipped, so {@link oxidationPotential} computes them rather than a second
+ * table repeating them. That matters more than it sounds: a table of oxidation potentials beside a
+ * table of reduction potentials is the single commonest source of sign errors in this topic, and
+ * two tables can disagree while one cannot.
+ *
+ * Textbooks write the same cell either way. "E°cell = E°anode(ox) + E°cathode(red)" and
+ * "E°cell = E°cathode(red) − E°anode(red)" are the same statement, because E°ox = −E°red. Both
+ * routes are reachable from what is here, and neither needs its own data.
+ *
+ * ## Why a couple is not a metal
+ *
+ * The obvious shape for this data is a list of metals, and it is wrong. Iron has two couples in
+ * ordinary use, Fe²⁺/Fe at −0.44 V and Fe³⁺/Fe²⁺ at +0.77 V, and they sit at opposite ends of the
+ * series: one of the most readily oxidised metals and a respectable oxidising agent. The same is
+ * true of copper, tin and manganese. Keying on the element would make those unreachable or, worse,
+ * silently pick one.
+ *
+ * So the record is the COUPLE, and a half-reaction it can write out.
+ *
+ * ## Provenance
+ *
+ * Aqueous standard reduction potentials at 298.15 K, unit activity, from the CRC Handbook's
+ * electrochemical series. Values are quoted to the two decimals that data booklets use, because
+ * that is the precision a learner is asked to work to and quoting more would imply an agreement
+ * between sources that does not exist at the third decimal.
+ *
+ * Pure: no React, no pixels.
+ */
+/** Which electrode a half-cell ends up as in a given cell. */
+type Role = 'cathode' | 'anode';
+interface Couple {
+  /** Stable key, e.g. `Zn2+/Zn`. */
+  readonly id: string;
+  /**
+   * The BALANCED reduction half-equation, written out.
+   *
+   * Stored rather than assembled, because assembling it needs stoichiometry this record does not
+   * carry. A template of `oxidised + ne⁻ → reduced` is right only for a metal and its own ion, and
+   * it was quietly wrong for most of this table: it produced `Cl₂ + 2e⁻ → Cl⁻`, missing the 2 on
+   * the chloride, and `OH⁻ → O₂ + 4e⁻` with no water in it at all. Both look like half-equations
+   * and neither balances.
+   *
+   * A rendered lab caught it, because a wrong equation printed under a beaker is still a
+   * perfectly plausible-looking string.
+   */
+  readonly halfEquation: string;
+  /** The oxidised form, as written in the half-equation. */
+  readonly oxidised: string;
+  /** The reduced form. */
+  readonly reduced: string;
+  /** Electrons transferred in the half-reaction as written. */
+  readonly electrons: number;
+  /** Standard REDUCTION potential, volts against the standard hydrogen electrode. */
+  readonly standardPotential: number;
+  /**
+   * Species whose concentration enters the reaction quotient, with the power it is raised to.
+   *
+   * Positive powers for the oxidised side, negative for the reduced side, and solids and the
+   * solvent omitted entirely. A solid has unit activity, so including copper metal in Q as though
+   * it had a concentration is exactly the error that makes a learner's Nernst answer drift.
+   */
+  readonly quotient: Readonly<Record<string, number>>;
+  /** True where the electrode is inert and only carries electrons (platinum, graphite). */
+  readonly inertElectrode?: boolean;
+}
+/**
+ * The electrochemical series, most negative first.
+ *
+ * Ordering is by potential rather than by insertion, so "more readily oxidised" is a position in
+ * this array and never a separate claim that could drift out of step with the numbers.
+ */
+declare const COUPLES: readonly Couple[];
+/** A couple by id, case-insensitively. Undefined rather than a guess when it is not in the series. */
+declare const coupleById: (id: string) => Couple | undefined;
+/**
+ * The standard OXIDATION potential, which is the reduction potential with its sign reversed.
+ *
+ * Computed rather than stored. See the note at the top of this file on why a second table would be
+ * a liability rather than a convenience.
+ */
+declare const oxidationPotential: (couple: Couple) => number;
+/** The balanced half-equation as written for reduction, e.g. `Cu²⁺ + 2e⁻ → Cu`. */
+declare const reductionEquation: (couple: Couple) => string;
+/**
+ * The same half-reaction run backwards, which is what happens at an anode.
+ *
+ * Derived from the reduction equation by swapping the sides and carrying the electrons across,
+ * rather than stored a second time. Two strings for one reaction could disagree; this cannot, and
+ * it keeps whatever stoichiometry and spectator water the reduction form already got right.
+ */
+declare function oxidationEquation(couple: Couple): string;
+/**
+ * Is the reduced form of `a` able to reduce the oxidised form of `b`?
+ *
+ * The whole predictive content of the series in one comparison: a couple lower in the table has
+ * the stronger reducing agent on its reduced side, so zinc metal reduces copper(II) and copper
+ * metal does not reduce zinc(II).
+ */
+declare const canReduce: (a: Couple, b: Couple) => boolean;
+/** The stronger oxidising agent of two oxidised forms, which is the one higher in the series. */
+declare const strongerOxidant: (a: Couple, b: Couple) => Couple;
+//#endregion
+export { COUPLES, Couple, Role, canReduce, coupleById, oxidationEquation, oxidationPotential, reductionEquation, strongerOxidant };

package/dist/electro/couples.mjs

@@ -0,0 +1,334 @@
+//#region src/electro/couples.ts
+/**
+* The electrochemical series, most negative first.
+*
+* Ordering is by potential rather than by insertion, so "more readily oxidised" is a position in
+* this array and never a separate claim that could drift out of step with the numbers.
+*/
+const COUPLES = [
+	{
+		id: "Li+/Li",
+		halfEquation: "Li⁺ + e⁻ → Li",
+		oxidised: "Li⁺",
+		reduced: "Li",
+		electrons: 1,
+		standardPotential: -3.04,
+		quotient: { "Li+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "K+/K",
+		halfEquation: "K⁺ + e⁻ → K",
+		oxidised: "K⁺",
+		reduced: "K",
+		electrons: 1,
+		standardPotential: -2.93,
+		quotient: { "K+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Ca2+/Ca",
+		halfEquation: "Ca²⁺ + 2e⁻ → Ca",
+		oxidised: "Ca²⁺",
+		reduced: "Ca",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: -2.87,
+		quotient: { "Ca2+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Na+/Na",
+		halfEquation: "Na⁺ + e⁻ → Na",
+		oxidised: "Na⁺",
+		reduced: "Na",
+		electrons: 1,
+		standardPotential: -2.71,
+		quotient: { "Na+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Mg2+/Mg",
+		halfEquation: "Mg²⁺ + 2e⁻ → Mg",
+		oxidised: "Mg²⁺",
+		reduced: "Mg",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: -2.37,
+		quotient: { "Mg2+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Al3+/Al",
+		halfEquation: "Al³⁺ + 3e⁻ → Al",
+		oxidised: "Al³⁺",
+		reduced: "Al",
+		electrons: 3,
+		standardPotential: -1.66,
+		quotient: { "Al3+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Mn2+/Mn",
+		halfEquation: "Mn²⁺ + 2e⁻ → Mn",
+		oxidised: "Mn²⁺",
+		reduced: "Mn",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: -1.18,
+		quotient: { "Mn2+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Zn2+/Zn",
+		halfEquation: "Zn²⁺ + 2e⁻ → Zn",
+		oxidised: "Zn²⁺",
+		reduced: "Zn",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: -.76,
+		quotient: { "Zn2+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Cr3+/Cr",
+		halfEquation: "Cr³⁺ + 3e⁻ → Cr",
+		oxidised: "Cr³⁺",
+		reduced: "Cr",
+		electrons: 3,
+		standardPotential: -.74,
+		quotient: { "Cr3+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Fe2+/Fe",
+		halfEquation: "Fe²⁺ + 2e⁻ → Fe",
+		oxidised: "Fe²⁺",
+		reduced: "Fe",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: -.44,
+		quotient: { "Fe2+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Cd2+/Cd",
+		halfEquation: "Cd²⁺ + 2e⁻ → Cd",
+		oxidised: "Cd²⁺",
+		reduced: "Cd",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: -.4,
+		quotient: { "Cd2+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Co2+/Co",
+		halfEquation: "Co²⁺ + 2e⁻ → Co",
+		oxidised: "Co²⁺",
+		reduced: "Co",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: -.28,
+		quotient: { "Co2+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Ni2+/Ni",
+		halfEquation: "Ni²⁺ + 2e⁻ → Ni",
+		oxidised: "Ni²⁺",
+		reduced: "Ni",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: -.25,
+		quotient: { "Ni2+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Sn2+/Sn",
+		halfEquation: "Sn²⁺ + 2e⁻ → Sn",
+		oxidised: "Sn²⁺",
+		reduced: "Sn",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: -.14,
+		quotient: { "Sn2+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Pb2+/Pb",
+		halfEquation: "Pb²⁺ + 2e⁻ → Pb",
+		oxidised: "Pb²⁺",
+		reduced: "Pb",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: -.13,
+		quotient: { "Pb2+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "H+/H2",
+		halfEquation: "2H⁺ + 2e⁻ → H₂",
+		oxidised: "H⁺",
+		reduced: "H₂",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: 0,
+		quotient: {
+			"H+": 2,
+			H2: -1
+		},
+		inertElectrode: true
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Sn4+/Sn2+",
+		halfEquation: "Sn⁴⁺ + 2e⁻ → Sn²⁺",
+		oxidised: "Sn⁴⁺",
+		reduced: "Sn²⁺",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: .15,
+		quotient: {
+			"Sn4+": 1,
+			"Sn2+": -1
+		},
+		inertElectrode: true
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Cu2+/Cu",
+		halfEquation: "Cu²⁺ + 2e⁻ → Cu",
+		oxidised: "Cu²⁺",
+		reduced: "Cu",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: .34,
+		quotient: { "Cu2+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "O2/OH-",
+		halfEquation: "O₂ + 2H₂O + 4e⁻ → 4OH⁻",
+		oxidised: "O₂",
+		reduced: "OH⁻",
+		electrons: 4,
+		standardPotential: .4,
+		quotient: {
+			O2: 1,
+			"OH-": -4
+		},
+		inertElectrode: true
+	},
+	{
+		id: "I2/I-",
+		halfEquation: "I₂ + 2e⁻ → 2I⁻",
+		oxidised: "I₂",
+		reduced: "I⁻",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: .54,
+		quotient: { "I-": -2 },
+		inertElectrode: true
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Fe3+/Fe2+",
+		halfEquation: "Fe³⁺ + e⁻ → Fe²⁺",
+		oxidised: "Fe³⁺",
+		reduced: "Fe²⁺",
+		electrons: 1,
+		standardPotential: .77,
+		quotient: {
+			"Fe3+": 1,
+			"Fe2+": -1
+		},
+		inertElectrode: true
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Ag+/Ag",
+		halfEquation: "Ag⁺ + e⁻ → Ag",
+		oxidised: "Ag⁺",
+		reduced: "Ag",
+		electrons: 1,
+		standardPotential: .8,
+		quotient: { "Ag+": 1 }
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Br2/Br-",
+		halfEquation: "Br₂ + 2e⁻ → 2Br⁻",
+		oxidised: "Br₂",
+		reduced: "Br⁻",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: 1.07,
+		quotient: { "Br-": -2 },
+		inertElectrode: true
+	},
+	{
+		id: "O2/H2O",
+		halfEquation: "O₂ + 4H⁺ + 4e⁻ → 2H₂O",
+		oxidised: "O₂",
+		reduced: "H₂O",
+		electrons: 4,
+		standardPotential: 1.23,
+		quotient: {
+			O2: 1,
+			"H+": 4
+		},
+		inertElectrode: true
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Cr2O7^2-/Cr3+",
+		halfEquation: "Cr₂O₇²⁻ + 14H⁺ + 6e⁻ → 2Cr³⁺ + 7H₂O",
+		oxidised: "Cr₂O₇²⁻",
+		reduced: "Cr³⁺",
+		electrons: 6,
+		standardPotential: 1.33,
+		quotient: {
+			"Cr2O7^2-": 1,
+			"H+": 14,
+			"Cr3+": -2
+		},
+		inertElectrode: true
+	},
+	{
+		id: "Cl2/Cl-",
+		halfEquation: "Cl₂ + 2e⁻ → 2Cl⁻",
+		oxidised: "Cl₂",
+		reduced: "Cl⁻",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: 1.36,
+		quotient: { "Cl-": -2 },
+		inertElectrode: true
+	},
+	{
+		id: "MnO4-/Mn2+",
+		halfEquation: "MnO₄⁻ + 8H⁺ + 5e⁻ → Mn²⁺ + 4H₂O",
+		oxidised: "MnO₄⁻",
+		reduced: "Mn²⁺",
+		electrons: 5,
+		standardPotential: 1.51,
+		quotient: {
+			"MnO4-": 1,
+			"H+": 8,
+			"Mn2+": -1
+		},
+		inertElectrode: true
+	},
+	{
+		id: "F2/F-",
+		halfEquation: "F₂ + 2e⁻ → 2F⁻",
+		oxidised: "F₂",
+		reduced: "F⁻",
+		electrons: 2,
+		standardPotential: 2.87,
+		quotient: { "F-": -2 },
+		inertElectrode: true
+	}
+];
+const BY_ID = new Map(COUPLES.map((c) => [c.id.toLowerCase(), c]));
+/** A couple by id, case-insensitively. Undefined rather than a guess when it is not in the series. */
+const coupleById = (id) => BY_ID.get(id.toLowerCase());
+/**
+* The standard OXIDATION potential, which is the reduction potential with its sign reversed.
+*
+* Computed rather than stored. See the note at the top of this file on why a second table would be
+* a liability rather than a convenience.
+*/
+const oxidationPotential = (couple) => -couple.standardPotential;
+/** The balanced half-equation as written for reduction, e.g. `Cu²⁺ + 2e⁻ → Cu`. */
+const reductionEquation = (couple) => couple.halfEquation;
+/**
+* The same half-reaction run backwards, which is what happens at an anode.
+*
+* Derived from the reduction equation by swapping the sides and carrying the electrons across,
+* rather than stored a second time. Two strings for one reaction could disagree; this cannot, and
+* it keeps whatever stoichiometry and spectator water the reduction form already got right.
+*/
+function oxidationEquation(couple) {
+	const [left, right] = couple.halfEquation.split("→");
+	if (left === void 0 || right === void 0) return couple.halfEquation;
+	const electrons = couple.electrons === 1 ? "e⁻" : `${couple.electrons}e⁻`;
+	const withoutElectrons = left.split("+").map((part) => part.trim()).filter((part) => part !== electrons).join(" + ");
+	return `${right.trim()} → ${withoutElectrons} + ${electrons}`;
+}
+/**
+* Is the reduced form of `a` able to reduce the oxidised form of `b`?
+*
+* The whole predictive content of the series in one comparison: a couple lower in the table has
+* the stronger reducing agent on its reduced side, so zinc metal reduces copper(II) and copper
+* metal does not reduce zinc(II).
+*/
+const canReduce = (a, b) => a.standardPotential < b.standardPotential;
+/** The stronger oxidising agent of two oxidised forms, which is the one higher in the series. */
+const strongerOxidant = (a, b) => a.standardPotential >= b.standardPotential ? a : b;
+
+//#endregion
+export { COUPLES, canReduce, coupleById, oxidationEquation, oxidationPotential, reductionEquation, strongerOxidant };