Fortuna

I tentatively disagree, pending your definition of "love" in this context. "Love" seems to be an imprecise term here. I will assume that you mean that an organism has a "will to live". That is also questionable. For example, a virus or bacteria (if you consider it living) is simply a living machine, it has no will (that we can discern) and no emotions. I would venture that they lack the biochemistry to experience "emotion", in the normal sense of the word (this is certainly so for the human experience of emotion, which is largely biochemical, but many times triggered by external pressures, sometimes not). For higher animals this might be true but again, I would ask you to more precisely define "love" in this context. Once again, this is imprecise. I must assume for the moment that you mean that individual organisms (as oppossed to generations of them) must adapt towards a longer lifespan. No, not necessarily. That would depend entirely on environmental pressures and the current state of adaptation to that environment. I can think of environments and states of the organism where it would be more advantageous to possess a shorter lifespan. In fact, It seems logical to me that faster and multiple organism reproduction(i.e. generating thousands of offspring at once as opposed to a few) would enable a species to survive as well as or better than individuals possessing longer lifespans. No, I don't believe that this is necessarily so. It might be so in some cases, but not in other cases. It depends simply on the lifeform, the environment and changes (i.e. Environmental pressures) that occur in either or both of those variables.

Wow, Halliday & Resnick, that book really takes me back ! This was used in my very first UG collegiate physics class (Physics 101), back in the late 1970s. I remember that most of us already had a decent grasp of basic calculus at the time (what might now be called high school AP Calculus). However I remember that I and the others in that class was at the same time taking Calc I and II. These parallel Calc classes were the real hardcore Calc I and II, (not business calculus or the watered down versions for business majors, MBA programs and other non-science majors). I agree with the other poster, you do need a good grasp of the general concepts of differentiation and integration, but as I remember the problems are really not all that difficult mechanically. What you need is a good grasp of the concepts to really understand the derivations in order to learn how to apply these in a more general way. This enables you to solve a variety of specific problems for that particular topic. I thoroughly enjoyed my first year UG physics class. The first semester of this class also served more or less as the elimination round for the physics program. We started the first semester with about 40 students in the class (most of them top notch sci students from their respective high schools), and at the start of the second semester the class had only 6 persons remaining. No worries though, almost all of those who dropped out changed their majors to Engineering (most of them to the EE program ehich was popular at that time) Anyway good luck to you, and hang in there ! Fortuna

JDurg, Au contraire, di-ethyl ether is very dangerous when peroxides form in it. Not to mention that Vogel disagrees with you. Given the choice, I tend to believe Vogel over you. Sorry. If you've actually worked with di-ethyl ether then surely you've noticed it acquire that yellow tinge. That is a sign of emminent danger, and at this point it becomes quite spontaneously explosive, unless you chilll it. (believe me on this one, been there, done that, seen it happen) And if you think that di-ethyl ether isn't very flammable, then, I expect you to soon acquire one of those marble headstones. Like I said, natural selection tends to rid us of not-so careful or well-informed chemists. Obviously I don;t want to see this happen to you. So, read up a little bit on di-ethyl ether.

Also, DCM, aka methylene Chloride, is commercially available as paint thinner/remover. You can distill it out using a steam bath ,as DCM has a very low boiling point. Test yout distillate after distillation. DCM is pretty easy to discern. It has an easily measured boiling point, as well as a very uncommon density. Plus, it has that sweet smell. Also, easily determined by its ability to easily dissolve certain essential oils. (Yikes- I don;t want to get too specific here, I'm on the border of getting a warning if I tell you too much about it). Let's just say that it is commonly used in a biphasic process to make certain illegal nitrosated precursor substances that are banned in just about every country I'm aware of. Possession of large quantities of DCM (with no other legitimate purpose) will bring the authorities down on you faster that driving down the left side of the road in the USA (or the right side on the UK). Definitely stuff to avoif unless you have a legit purpose for it. Extracting essential oils is certainly one legit purpose. But, essential oil purists regard the steam distillation method as the most desirable extraction mathod, for obvious reasons. (Hard to get those last traces of DCM out of the finished product). But heck, most of them wouldn;t know the difference anyway. We once did a test of steam distilled lavander oil vs solvent extraction and sent it off to be purity testedat an Essential oil certitifcation lab.. Both came back as nice and pure, with their stamp of approval. (Obviosly, they dont test their essential oils very well). Out of good conscious, we didnt distribute the solvent extracted oil, except to those who were using it for soap-making processes I mean, who cares, they're basifying it anyway with NaOH or KOH or Triethanaloamine.. I had actually heard of some idiots using lavander oil to treat the skin of infants, ( to moisten their skin I assume. Some of these naturalists idiots blow me away with some of their practices. I showed them that even steam distilled lavander oil is composed of over 40 chemical ingredients, 4 of which are known carcinogens. Of course, they didn't care. After all, how could something "natura"l harm them, was their rational. Ahem ! Well, Hemlock is natural and purely "organic" (whatwever the hell that means in their parlance), and willl kill you dead with certainty. But hey, to each his own I suppose. I once saw someone treat a cut with lavander oil, which later became so infected that gangrene set in. Neeedless to say, the hand had to be amputated. Of course they blamed it on the dirt from the initial cut, not on the fungus that had cultivated itself in the lavander oil. Are some of these essential oil naturalists total idiots ? Well, not all of the mare, some of htem are very careful and coniderate of what they have. Otheres are little more than voodoo practioners of the same ilk as Ms Cleo. Oh well. Natural selection at work,

Caffeine is industrially removed by SCFE (Super Criticsl Fluid Extraction) and this process is nearly 100% efficient. Commerciallly done using 1-butantol if memory serves. Easy to do, even in a home-made setup. Be sure to use SS20 as your reaction vessel. Similiar to the illegal process of ...(Well, I guess I shouldn;t reveal this at the risk of being warned or banned.

WEll, Diethyl ether is also pretty easy to extract from commercially available products. But, be warned, this stuff is majorly flammable, and can kill you without much effort, or by a simple mistake on your part. I strongly suggest that you don't attempt storing it for any long periods of time, as peroxides will form that will make it spontanteously explode. I suggest that you prepare it just before you are ready to use it, and don;t attempt storing it exceopt under refrigerated conditions, and even that isn;t fool proof. So, here is the procedure. Got to your local auto-parts store and obtain some commercial starting fluids which will tell you it contains di-ethyl ether. This will also contain methanol and other petrol additives. MIx it in a closed container with an equal volume of COLD distilled water. Shake vigourously for a short time and let it separate and pour into a separatory funnel. The eher will float to the top. Run off the bottom water layer, and run off a small fraction of the ether. Repeat the process (did I mention to usae COLD dH2O) ? After this process, chill the product, and add some dry CaCl2 to dry out any remaining water, Shake well, and filter. (NO OPEN FLAMES ANYWHERE WITHIN 100 feet while you do this. Best to do the filtration in a freezer. A blast shield isn;t a bad idea either. You now have some reasonably pure di-ethyl ether. Use it immediately for whatever you are going to do. If you want to store it, then use the procedure outlined by Vogel in his 5th edition, pg 404-405/ Make DAMN sure that it is 100% dry before adding some sodium wire, otherwise, you will be in need of a marble headstone which reads, <<This fool messed around with Di-ethyl ether>>. Make what you need, use it immediately, and dispose of what you dont use. NY the way, if you notice that some of your stored ether gets a yellowish color to it, carefully move it into a freezer, let it get very cold, and then dispose of it. Warning- The preceeding procedure is dangerous ! But, natural selection has a way of ridding us of chemists who arent so very bright, and those who don't follow directions well. And don't take my word for this alone. Read up in Vogel about this stuff. Do your research and folllow directions carefully. If you are an inpatient type of person. Dont even attempt this, or we will all be talking about how we miss you in this world.

Actually, simply measuring the density with a good volumetric column and an accurate scale will give you a pretty good idea of the concentration you have. The titration method of course works a bit better and is admittedly more accurate. However, be sure you don;t have any unreacted H2SO4 in there. If you know the purity of the H2SO4 and KNO3 you started with, you should already have a pretty good idea of what the concentration is anyway.

hmmm. I probably should't tell you this, but Coleman fuel is in large part composed of petroleum ether and some other high temp hydrocarbon plus a small fraction of some types of petroleum oils. Assuming that you need it fairly pure, you could distill it from colman fuel using a hot water or steam bath for the heat source. Needless to say, do NOT use an open flame to do this distillation. As I said, use a hot water bath and you need to use extremely cold water in the distillation column. Also, do not attempt vacuum distillation for obvious reasons. After distillation, test it against the known properties of pet ether.(again, do the boiling point test using a hot water bath. NO OPEN FLAMES around pet ether. While admittedly pet ether is not nearly as flammable as diethyl ether, it is still fairly flammable. As to using other organic solvents, if you would tell us what you are planning to do with it, I might be able to give you an appropriate substitute.

Coquina, These articles are truly fascinating ! I just started reading them and I am already amazed by their content. I particularly agree with one of the writers about the effects of the internet and the wealth of information that is available to us now. Its not so muh that it is avialable, but that it is available instantaneously, and how it is classified and structured. But, we are only seeing the beginning of what is possible. We are the frist, the poineers of having all this information at our fingertips. It is mind boggling to think of how this will affect future generations, and how they will continually improve our information gathering capabilities. Taken to one of its ultimate conclusions, imagine a world where every person is consciously linked to all the inofrmation databases of the world. Now imagine that we can also input our thoughts and opinions into a virtual databases. Does this in fact form a realtime collective consciousness, a Matrix of a very different kind ? (and imagine the possibilities for realtime gaming ! Whoa ! ) Will this someday happen to future generations ? I think so too. I only wish I could be there to see and experience it. Back to more reading. Thank you ! These articles made my week !

Well i tried but stopped after the first few lines. BTW are you saying you believe the universe revolves around the earth.? Newtonian, What ! No, I was being sarcastic. I thought the "Yikes" in the title, the eek and confused emoticons, and my little calc about the rotating spaceship, the "some body doesn't understand the diff between mass and weight" expressed my feeling well enough, but I guess I'd better be explicit. HELL NO ! I DON'T really like it at all. I think this guy has done waaayyy too many hallucinogenic drugs, and those drugs are making him think the bible is a science text. Um, do you think the universe revolves around the earth ? Calli, Agreed, your analogy was sufficient. It really doesn't take any formal math or physics to recognize a crackpot of this magnitude.

Calli, I hope that it is a joke, but reading over it, I think he is serious. Ok, this one is just plain silly ! m= 0 ??? FALSE ! (This guy blows me away.) Well, apparently somebody doesn't understand the difference between weight and mass ! Weight and mass are proportional by the gravitational accleration of whatever planet you are on, provided that m(object) << M(planet), usually a safe assumption for the average human and the average planet (the ones we know of anyway). OK, I agree that it might be impractical to simulate gravity with centripetal force, but let's see. Let's try a simple calculation. Lets assume a ship like the one on 2001, with a radius of 100 meters from the center of rotation to outer rim, where we want to have a simulated gravity. So, how fast would it have to rotate to simulate earth gravity (9.8 m/s^2) for a 150 lb (68 Kg) person. F = ma = mv^2 / r (definition of force set equal to centripetal force) So we have ; a = v^2/r (the m's cancel out - nice, but we knew that) => v = (ar)^1/2 puting in our values ; v = (9.8 m/s^2 * 100m)^1/2 -> (980(m2/s2)) ^1/2 = 31 m/s So, our ship would need to rotate such that a point on the outer rim has a velocity of 31 m/s. In radians/sec, that would be 31 m/s * 2pi rad / 2pi*100 m = .31 rad/s As long as a person stood firmly on the floor, they should experience a force very close to the gravity on earth provided the thing spins at .31 rad/sec. PS - Double check my math. The one about the earth satellite is even dumber.

Check out this guy's Alternative physics. . I especially liked The Earth Is Motionless Center of The Universe

ed84c, Why on earth would you think that such a commonly known and basic piece of information about one of the most common solvents has to be copied from a website ? This is elementary stuff No, I have a copy of Vogel's (better?) 3rd edition of Practical organic chemistry. And no, I've never seen that procedure reproduced on a website. Hey, its my job to do this kind of stuff. And it pays very well too ! And For the record, you will never hear me claim to be a good english speller. Also, I doubt that Vogel would give the proportions in v/v %, or use an offhand term like "packed column" to refer to a glass filled distillation column.

Reverse, I do agree with you about the well rounded education, that really isn't the issue for me. But, where grades are curved, I am in a class in competition with the students whose major was English. So, if I have to compete in an English class with an English major, then an English major should have to compete with me in Science. Or , I should get an English class free of english majors.

Thank you, that was exactly what torqued me off 20 years ago. I was a physics major in UG and was required to take English and English Lit. But I had to sit in a class with real English majors and compete against them for my grade. But, when an English major took science or math, they got to go to a watered down science or math class (I guess because they couldn't handle real science or real math) whre no science major could be found for them to compete against. I always thought that this was unfair to the science majors. Interesting to see that the old proverb still holds, "Same merde different day".

Well, shalom, amen and halleluiah to that, I only hope that you are right. But for some, I have my doubts. Sadly though, I have seen posts on both religious and non-religious forums where the poster advocates just the opposite, and believes that tolerance is something to be shunned and not practiced and actually promote intolerance of any position but their own. Have you ever heard Msr Pat Robertson's "I don't have to like 'em or work with 'em" rhetoric ? In any case, I think that a religious forum should be kept, further that there shouldn't be any restrictions on it. I believe this for just the reasons I bring up in my last paragraph. What I'm trying to say (and perhaps doing it not so very well) is that we need to see and realize that there are in fact many followers of people like Robertson, and we need to get their views and opinions out in the light of day and expose it for what it is. What we do not need is for this type of thinking (promotion of intolerance) to go underground or to become undiscussed. I'm not suggesting that we are going to change such a person's opinion. I highly doubt that is probable or likely. But maybe, just maybe some else is reading the forum who is undecided and is being solicited by those types reads a cogent rebuttal of such intolerance. Perhaps that then keeps them them from becoming one of them. Religious forums almost always generate conflict of some kind, especially when the membership is open to more than just the choir.

hmmm. That link doesn;t work for me either. In any case, I assume that we are talking about the famous Michelson-Morely experiment. One very vocal opponent of the classic interpretation of MM is canadian physicist Paul Marmet. Marmet claims that the null result does not in fact disprove the existence of a lumineferous ether.Here is a link to Marmet's argument. . I have also seen some assertions by some of the anti-SR folks that MM actually did not achieve a null result. Years ago on the old deja vu forums I used to argue passionately against the anti-SR people. But, to be honest, I never seemed to get anywhere with them, and it seemed they always had alternate explanations for verified time dialation phenomena (some good, but most of them were quackery). I ultimately just gave up. It seemed to me that because they wanted so badly for that absolute and universal frame of reference to exist that no argument no matter how logical or proven was going to sway them. I presented to them the extension of half life in cyclotrons, the cosmic ray/muon phenomena, none of which convinced them or swayed them in the least. I actually saw one guy who posted a "proof" that absolute motion could be detected using a 3 FoR system. I tried to corner him by taking his system and by arbitarily adding the an arbitrary velocity to all 3 FoR's proved that using his system it was undetectable. He told me that I was only "cleverly manipulting the math" and that just because I was able to do that it had no bearing on reality For that particular group, it was a dogmatic belief. Given the answer above, I though it useless to continue to argue with these people. I gave up, and they claimed victory. Other people like myself did the same thing, and ultimately they like me, just gave up. What is revealing to me about most of the Deja people is that none of them were trained physicsts, and almost all of them admitted that they didn't know calculus or advanced mathematics. I and other then asked them over and over again how they thought themselves qualified to even discuss SR, much less disprove it. We got the usual reponses that we had been "brainwashed by the universities" and other such arguments. They really were never going to accept the relativity of time. Anyway, it should be interesting to see if these guys come up with a null result from their version of the MM experiment. I am tempted to reproduce a post or 2 here from another forum wher the same anti-SR argument has been taking place for years. I feel sorry for the people of that forum, because the anti-SR crowd perverts any thread about SR into a battlefield. I can only hope that it doesn;t happen (or hasn;t happenned) here.

No, it is not immiscible. Water and EtOH are very miscible. In fact it will form an azeotrope. (95/5 EtOH/H2O). When doing a fractional distillation on a 50/50 EtOH/H2O solution, you will end up with the azeotrope (95/5) and water, even with your best packed column. Getting the EtOH to 99+% is possible (however, obviously not using FD). Voegel gives a procedure for producing dry EtOH in his "Solvent & reagents" section.

JDurg, You might be right, but I think there is more to it than that. I just looked over the FisherSci and Alrich catalogs, and I can find no KOH labelled as "anhydrous". There is something called 99% Cat #306568, Semiconductor Grade 99.99% (but on looking at the specs, it has 14% H2O). The only other thing is a 90.00% grade Cat #484016, very expensive, but it also says it contains 14% H2O. I cannot find any available KOH that is calling itself anhydrous. So, I'm not certain that you can buy it at any price. And that is what I think I'm saying. You cannot reasonably make or store anhydrous KOH (as KOH itself, if you see what I'm saying), but you can do it in-situ. And I'm thinking that this is how it is almost always done. If you know where it can be purchased, please post a link.(not that I need any, I'm just curious to see if anyone actually has it available).

Buddle, OK, it's coming back to me now (geez, you must think I'm some senile old lady). As I remember what they did was to add both a dessicant and some CaO to the part of the process that needed the KOH as the reactant. The dessicant would absorb while the CaO would combine with the water shed by the KOH flakes to form the hydroxide Ca(OH)2. This helped greatly because the main reaction going on experienced a stearic hindurance from the presence of the water. Thus this in-situ sub-process that effectively removes the H2O(or any other reasonable sub-process) improves the efficiency of the main reaction. Such a sub-process was necessitated because of the virtual impossibility (or perhaps unfeasibility) of making or acquiring very dry KOH. I will still search some general references as I get some time and post if I find anything one way or the other. I probably shouldn't (and have not) give much more specific info on that particular reaction. Although it was a long time ago I'm sure they had me sign an NDA.(Some companies are anal about that stuff)

Budulle, Maybe that is what I am remembering, that it is "practically impossible" to keep dry. But I think I remember more than that, some reason it was so hard to "remove" or perhaps to maintain. (see below). No Dejurg, I dont think that I'm suggesting that the H2O is lattice bonded as with other hydrated molecules as represented with the .H2O suffix. (Actually I've never seen KOH written that way). Actually, ACS grade is only required to be 86% See here KOH ACS Grade . Except for when I was a student, I have never worked on any industrial process or curious experimentation that required dry KOH. The usual 15% H2O USP/FCC grade was sufficient. As I said, it is possible that I'm not remembering something correctly. What I remember is some time ago while co-oping (I was a student then) for a process consulting firm who had a client they had done some work for who had a process that used KOH at some intermediate stage, and the efficiency of the conversation had to do with the purity of industrial KOH, and how it always has some water in it, and that it was practically impossible to get it fully dry. Apparently the driness of the KOH affected the yield of the process. I've been doing some research on it, and haven't found anything definitive yet, save what Budulle is describing. I'll let you know if I find anything, Just consider it my hunch(not necessarily true) until I can get some verification.

Actually, if memory serves me it is next to impossible to make or obtain anhydrous KOH. I don't actually remember why, but I will look it up. (I seem to remember something about it getting trapped in the crystal structure.) I also remember something about the K - OH bond being more stable in a weaker bonding state than what you would calculate for Na. If I'm remembering this right, it has to do with its so-called quantum bonding orbital. That is, the more stable configuration is somewhat more energetic, thus somewhat easier to break. Darn. I need to look this up. Addendum - Well, I do see listings for "Anhydrous KOH", but I was almost certain that I learned somewhere along the way that it is virtually impossible to get all the water out of KOH. Maybe I'm wrong about this. (Wouldn't be the first time = ).

One of the best has got to be the Belousov Zhabotinsky reaction or BZR. You've got about 40 repeating chemical reactions going there forming a chemical oscillator, lasting about an hour or so. This thing is cool. Here is a link ;BZR reaction

Well, I think a good deal has been said here so far. We all understand that the theory of evolution is a theoretical model we use, and I for one cannot deny that it is a very useful model and as a framework for other models and understanding aspects of biochemistry and special areas of organic chemistry, just like gravity (as another poster says). Niether evolution nor gravity has anything to do with ethical or moral concerns. These are wooden and literal theories. But interestingly, that is what those who publish this propoganda are trying to say ? I am led now to question their motivation for putting forth such a distortion of the true information. Why ? The reason is that the evolutionary model and those parts of the other sciences that use it conflicts with their worldview. Obviously, if they don't like the fact that we use this model, I would ask them to create for us an equal or a (hopefully) better one. I am open to a different one, especially if it is better ! But, they don't have any. What else is there to say ? Yet my irony meter is off the scale ! Racism is big in the bible. Consider that they call themselves "chosen people". Some of those stories are very racist and brutal, pillaging, stories of atrocities against Canaanite women and children, etc. I will stop now. but ..... Oivey ! In any case, I'm glad to see it being addressed honestly.

Thanks for all the advice. Well, I have to report that it ended badly with one casualty. The casualty was of course the $12 RB flask. To answer one poster's question, yes, it was a pyrex stopper, and that was one of my initial errors. I really liked Reverse's idea of getting it inside some other vessel and pumping it down to a greater vacuum than what was in the flask. Unfortunately, the only suitable vessel I had was a vacuum dessicator, and this 250 ml RB flask would not fit inside it. Anyway, I tried the local heating idea. I used a garden variety hardware store propane torch, and tried to evenly apply heat around the neck of the flask. I then tried to remove it with no luck. It was still stuck on hard. But, as the neck cooled, the neck of the flask split (I heard it go "plink" ). I wondered now that occurred, but I think I understand it now. The ground neck and stopper are slightly tapered to make a good seal as the stopper is inserted. As I heated up the neck, the neck did expand, but as it did, the stopper got pulled deeper into the neck. As it cooled, the neck shrank around the stopper, and thus the plink. The good news is that I recovered the solvent and aldehyde, nice and dry too. A small sample of the solution stayed nice and blue to a CoCl2.16H2O/MeOH reagent I made up for this purpose. I try to learn from every experience and today I'll share that so others don't repeat my screwups. Anyway ; - Use a rubber or cork stopper. In that way a needle could have been used to pump in some air and unvacuum it or might have been removable by hand. - Start out colder if possible and work fast. Don't let it sit or if so burp it at regular intervals so as not to end up with such a high vacuum inside the flask. - Better to use nonpolar solvents where possible (i.e. DCM might have worked here) and thus eliminating the need for drying, or at least making possible a pour through the dessicant drying process. Unfortunately, the common and cheap non-water polar solvents are usually so friggin hygroscopic they suck moisture from the air in no time.