The Thing

Technetium occurs naturally only in Uranium ores as a result of spontaneous fission; Promethium is a byproduct of fission, and does not occur naturally on earth. Those two I think should not be counted as naturally occurring. Francium and Astatine are the two rarest elements on earth. For me, I go with the 88 naturally occuring elements (like ecoli), instead of the 92. But anywhere from 88 to 91 I don't really mind. I haven't a very strong opinion on this matter.

Technetium is a synthetic element, and Promethium is created from nuclear reactions. There has been a lot of debates going on about Francium and Astatine being "naturally occuring" due to their .

Oh yea, Germans during WWII used them against Jews. Not that the Jews are the bad guys. I think I've also heard from someone that HCN is also used in US Execution Chambers.

WIKIPEDIA!!!!!11!1 is teh r0xx0rzz!!!1!1!11 I know in Canada, your chem 11 or 12 book would have a chapter on orbitals and stuff, hybridization, covalent (sigma and pi) boning, and the shapes of covalent bonding (linear, trigonal planar, tetrahedral etc) which you seek. I dunno about in the states or wherever you're from (doesn't say in the profile). But I'd still go with wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_orbital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_hybridization More you can search in wikipedia.

Thx for the replies everyone. I now understand that cyanide is metabolized and after a few hours it's gone, so the body can't accumulate it. But, say you're in exposure of cyanide constantly, day and night, and the cyanide does not kill you, but there isn't a moment when you are away from it (say in that factory in my story), what happens then? Well, there goes my story of the snake getting killed by the poision of his victim... Down the drain *swirl*

Is it possible to accumulate a level of cyanide in human's blood (by prolonged exposure to, say, KCN, in a poorly-conditioned factory) that's high enough to kill small animals when they bite you, without killing the human? I'm asking this because today I was having a wonderful zoning-out session then I remembered something my dad told me a few years ago. He told me a story of a guy in a very poorly conditioned factory working with potassium cyanide, and he was under constant exposure to KCN. The dosage he got everyday from the fumes and stuff was small, and it didn't kill him. After about 20 years in that hell of a place, one day he got bitten by a cobra (or was it a rattlesnake, can't remember). He didn't die, but the snake died after biting him. Apparently, it was the cyanide accumulated in his blood that poisoned the snake to death. Of course, my dad told me this for entertainment, but now I'm thinking if that really IS possible, that after years of constant exposure to cyanide you get used to it but your blood's cyanide level gets so high that it is able to poison small animals. So, is this possible?

I think its Michael Jackson.

Lol. How very unfortunate.

You MAY have misunderstood me, but the bismuth itself isn't that powerful to destroy your house. In the experiment there's also a very strong current creating a very strong magnetic field involved, but again, it being dangerous, you shouldn't really do it. I personally have never done that, and so I can't really give you any first-hand advice. The wiser and more knowledgeable chem experts in this forum can help you there. As for diamagnetic levitation, here are some sources: http://www.otherpower.com/newmaglev.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetic

Oh alright. thx. I was only curious cuz a few hours ago I saw his thread in relativity about him declaring that he would post his theory today. Ah well.

He got banned! I wonder why? I was rather curious to see his theory. I know that he was dragging on forever and ever, but he was JUST about to post it last time I checked the relativity forum. Anyone knows why he was banned and his thread deleted? Did he, again, refrained from posting his theory?

Diamagnetic Levitation! Fun stuff. Small levitations require very precise measurements, so you need to be a bit patient. I've seen one diamagnetism experiment involving Bismuth that was pretty violent, but I'll refrain from mentioning it here since it has the force to knock a hole in your roof.

I think that commercial acids and bases, when sold, are using the wt. % instead of the mass/volume %. Assuming that I thought correctly: [math] \frac{wt. percent*density}{MW}*10=M [/math] M=Molarity density: (I think specific gravity is given most of the time instead of density) MW=molecular weight And the % is the wt.% of the concentration. Simply rearrange the formula above.

Why on earth would you make a thread about posting a paper, advertise all around the forums about your theory attracting tons of inevitable attention, drag on and on about how great it is (it maybe is!), and then still not post it? I don't get the logic behind this: you've been told that no one would steal your ideas, and you know there are physicists here more qualified than you are, and you know that we won't laugh at your ideas and all this frustration is caused by the fact that after 3 pages of posts in this thread, after about 80 posts in which you made some kind of reference to your fantastic theory, you still have not produced a tangible report. I've done a complete and thorough search of your posts before I posted this, and I just want to say that your attention are focused on two things in this forum: 100% efficent machines and a superior-to-relativity theory. You hint heavily non-stop how they are very possible and we are all here to believe it, if only you could post your ideas and if it makes sense. I don't doubt that you have the ability and the "insane IQ" to really think of a theory that CAN prove everything you've said, but again, you've only given very ambiguous hints about its nature. You use diagrams from alchemists, which bewilders me completely as to where your theory might take you. Mark that no one here is flaming you, and I, again, believe that you CAN produce a fine theory. If you have any other discomforts other than the ones mentioned above about posting your theory, then please state them and we'll try to understand. But if you have none, please, for the love of god, STOP this tantalizing rant and just post the frigin thing!

I use Firefox, but seeing that I have a poor connection the use for a network tweaking software is rather limited. Anyways, this is taken STRAIGHT out of the Official Mozilla Firefox Extension page: Performance and network tweaks for Firefox. Fasterfox allows you to tweak many network and rendering settings such as simultaneous connections, pipelining, cache, DNS cache, and initial paint delay. Dynamic speed increases can be obtained with the unique prefetching mechanism, which recycles idle bandwidth by silently loading and caching all of the links on the page you are browsing. A popup blocker for popups initiated by Flash plug-ins is also included. Oh btw it has an average of 4/5 star rating from the users.

The Archeometre? You do know that thing was created by an alchemist?

Your chem textbook should have a small to medium table of it, either at the appendix or right in the chapter that explains bonds.

@ Cosine Ah, I have a weird habit of using all caps on certain words. I apologize, but I must say, I was a witness of your 10 consecutive posts (each containing about 5 answers) and was a bit overwhelmed. @ Everyone I agree that some functions should be made possible, but some shouldn't. I personally feel that all the functions you can find on a scientific calculator in Windows are acceptable. The thread has been idle for some time now (relatively of course, it has only been what, about a day? But compared to before when within the hour another answer usually pops up). I might take a leaf out of Ducky's book and leave too, but haven't decided yet. Let's see how this thread goes. It was pretty fun the first 90, but from there it was downhill.

WHAT? What in the world is F_4? If it is the SUM of the Fibonacci numbers, as I believe, than some of the numbers cosine's done up there is definitely wrong. So elaborate, what IN THE WORLD is F_4? If it is simply, 1, 1, 2, 3, and the 3 is F_4, then again some of them are wrong. I can't think of how 4^3 + 4/4 can equal 129. Indeed, 4^any whole number don't make 128. And last time I checked, the Fibonacci numbers did NOT go into decimals in the first four.

Ah, you mixed up bond strength and reactivity (stability). It is true that triple bonds are stronger than double bonds, which in turn are stronger than single bonds. However, bond reactivity is another thing. The C-C triple bond (dunno how to get the three lines) is stronger than the C=C double bond, and it will be proven once you check any table of bond dissociation energy. However, the triple bond has a region of greater density of electrons between the atoms than the double bond, and when electron-seekers approach the greater electron density allows more vulnerability to their attack. So the overall message is: dissociation of a molecule by simply pulling the atoms apart (the bond strength) is different from attack from something that has a great affinity for electrons (reactivity). Edit: A quick search and here are the single, double and triple bonds (carbon to carbon) in organic compounds and their respective bond energy (in kJ/mol) Single, occurs in alkanes, with energy of 347. Double, occurs in alkenes, with energy of 614 Triple, occurs in alkynes, with energy of 839

Thx for all the replies. It was just a thought that came to me, and I thought I'd discuss it. Another question I have is how can an immune response be induced towards a substance that is usually considered benign? That is, training the immune system to attack something it wouldn't normally attack? Can we control this?

Impossible! I am positive that there were no other posts after mine when I edited, but oh well, moving on: Edit: Ecoli beat me to it, dang. And: [math] antilog(\sqrt{4})+4*4+\sqrt{4}=118 [/math]

Ecoli, a bit too late =) on 113, 114, 115, and 116. The Thing strikes again! lol.

Check your syntax. Edit: What a waste of a post, so I'll post 114: [math] sin^{-1}(cos(\frac{4}{\sqrt{4}}))+4!+\sqrt{4}=114 [/math] And 115: [math] sin^{-1}(cos(\frac{4}{4}))+4!+\sqrt{4}=115 [/math] And 116 - no trig! [math] \frac{4!\sqrt{4}}{.4}-4=116 [/math]

Xyph's got till 112. Ecoli you have a LaTeX Error too. [math] sin^{-1}(cos(4!-\sqrt{4}))+tan^{-1}(\frac{4}{4})=113 [/math]