Dak

actually, i take that back. stop confusing me, hippy. ok, i looked it up . a reducing species is one which provides eletrons for another chemical, ie a reducing species oxidises itself to reduce something else oxidation is the loss of eletrons reduction is the gain of eletrons so, something that will lose eletrons is a reducing agent. so AlH4- and H- are both possible reducing agents as they have exess eletrons to lose. as to which one actually does the redusing, it depends. if the lithium dissociates from the rest of the compound, leaving Li+ and AlH4- ions, then id say AlH4- is the redusing species. if, however, the compound stays together and the hydrogen draws eletrons toward it/the lithium and aluminium push eletrons away from it, then the resulting H- regions of the compound would be the reducing agents. as to which one is the case.... i dunno. id also wait until someone else has confirmed/refuted this post before you believe it.

i did say that i was confused... yes, of course if redusing species is something that reduces then H- would infact be a bad redusing species, what with it, in fact, being an oxidising speicies. cheers for catching that one, benson.

although having said that, if a reducing species is something that reduses something else, and if LiAlH4 contains H- ion regions, then id assume that the H- ions were your redusing species, as theyed be quite inclined to yield their extra eletron. maybe. oh im confused now, stuff it grumble grumble grumble stupid chemistry

i assumed that 'reducing species' was something that reduced something else, not something that reduced itself whilst doing something, but id like to add the same disclamer that you did. ie i get all confused with this. also, it doesnt help that biochemists (ie chemists who study organic chemicals) and biochemists (ie biologists who know about chemistry) oftern use completely different words. bloody nomclamenturial inconsistencys .

i suppose that, in this area, overcaution is better than carelessness. many posters have been putting forward the idea that there should be seperate names for practacing and non-practacing paedophiles, tho (newtonians comment was directed at practicing paedophiles). although i agree that the actual word is a tad unscientific. how would you paedophiles reccomend changing the law/policy/social attetude/etc to better protect childeren (if you consider them in need of protection)?

one of my favorites, but make a back-up of the reg before using it, go to run and type regedit goto file > export chose a location for your back-up of the reg and click save crap clean away! if anything goes wrong, inport your back-up copy of the reg (regedit>file>import) i still wanna know how your pc got fixed?

look, you gotta remember theres a lot of rubbish spread about the equality issue. for example, above i made the mistake of believing that the law states that x% of employees must be black. 'political correctness' is also oftern blamed on the govournment. and as for the rabid muslims going unprosecuted and white people who mumble 'pakkie' getting sent away for life, remember this: "white man mumbles pakkie and gets away with it" and "rabid muslim insites people to kill and then unsurprisingly gets arrestd" arent headlines that will sell many copies of the sun. the poliece maintain order and protect peoples right to free speech, even if what theyre saying is unpopular -- the BNP rallies and this hook-hands sermons BOTH being examples. and if someone goes too far and tries to incite violence or ratial hatred, they are arrested -- the BNP leader and hook-hand are also BOTH examples of this.

1/hmm... i dunno. id assume its the one thats is having its eletrons pulled away from it the hardest, but im not sure. 2/i always remember it as OILRIG: Oxidation Is Loss, Reduction Is Gain (of eletrons). so to be redused, something must gain eletrons. so to reduse a compound, the redusing species must have eletrons to give, so id agree with you that c) is the answre 3/all the functional groups are on the right, so well number from that side. lesse, 5 carbons (pent-)two chlorine atoms (dichloropent-) on the 1st and 2nd carbon, (1,2-dichloropent-) and a carbonyl group right up the end making it an aldahyde so id have called it 1,2-dichloropental, but my memories a bit fuzzy so i suppose it could be ~pentanal. if you google 1,2-dichloropentanal you might find its molecular formula.

blimey, i forgot i about this. yah, any1 who wants to have a go, jcarison was on the right tracks - look for commonly repeating sequenses of numbers to work out which numbers code for which letters etc ::edit:: AP: if your wondering, thats why i chose your name, cos its got a z and an x in it, which arent in the original message, so you have to work out the second bit to be able to answre the question.

oh wow! i feel we've somehow contributed to the world. our formula is out there being used although if it becomes known as the 'brinnie equasion' im gonna be pissed...

actually, hasnt the founder of the bnp only just been arrested? you know, after years of spouting "burn the pakkies"?

is this where your headed, by the way?

i dunno. you could link it to some kind of 'auto-warn' system, which automatically issues a warning point and a 'do-not-postwhore' PM when someone acts too post-whorey, thus taking some pressure off of the mods, and also making it less personal so the whole issue can be delt with without feelings being hurt.

which is why i like your idea of 'liek' and pinkness. computers can measure them. reguarding liek/like = 1 which is different from the original pwi: its a different system so its allowed to be. we could convert liek/like ratio into pwi after wev figured a few more out, so we know the relation.

problem is, if liek is correlated to post-whoreyness, then by factoring in both the number of valid points/number of posts (a measurement of postwhoryness) AND the occourance of liek (another measure of postwhoreyness), your measuring postwhoreyness twice, which would skew the results. i like the idea of measuring 'liek' tho, its quick and easy. how many times has she used it?

im not sure that that would actually have any baring on the equaion as such but if you can prove a link between occourance of liek with post-whoryness, we could definately start to develop a heuristical post-whore analisis based upon the frequency of use of liek, so that we never have to count the number of words that a person has written again (that took ages). pink text could be factored into the heuristic.

yes, you are correct

well, i searched for all your posts and got the following stats number of posts = 15 number of intelligent points = 3 number of words =289 time taken = 104 mins plug them into the equasion to get [math]z = {\sum y \over x} = {3 \over 15} = 0.2 \text{ so yes, you are a post-whore}[/math] s = d/t = 289/104 = 2.7 YOU ARE A POST-WHORE WITH A POST-WHORE INDEX OF 0.2 AND A MAGNITUDE OF 2.7 interpretation: you post too much. hope that helps

thats because it isn't a question: its a statement.

actually, thats demonstratably not true

quantum mechanics.

you know, i suspected it might...

you were the one who mentioned time and space, btw, is this theoryetical QM? iv always wondered what it feels like.

post-whore temporal equasion [math] {{\sum y}\over{x}} = z.[/math] where y = an intelligent point that has been made, and x = number of posts. d/t=s d=posts t=time in minutes s=post speed in posts per minute if z < 1, then you are a post-whore, in which case s would be the magnitude of the post-whoreyness. what'd'ya recon? we still havent adressed the post-whores movement through space though.

that would screw the single-point post-whore equasion. very few people can manage to make one intelligent point per word.