RyanJ

Pretty much the same here. I don't see why though because they are two very different processes and both have good and bad points too their uses, admittedly cloning probably has more disadvantages than using natural stem-cells (one being that when the DNA is incorporated into a cell to be cloned, the DNA is already old and damaged and so its actually older than it seems, this can cause problems later as a result). I think the laws on this are justifiable to a point (as in cloning a human for the purpose of experimentation seems morally wrong.) but I do believe experiments with cloning of organs etc. should be permitted because of the massive positive implications it would have on medicine.

Actually given sufficient technological advances it may someday be possible to engineer a new body for a person and transplant their brain. Like I said this is a big maybe, science is nowhere close to that type of technology yet but I agree currently the only real use is for growing organs and this probably won't happen either unless its an emergency due to the dangers caused by the cloning its self. Eventually cloning will probably be superseded by stem cell research anyway as it doesn't have the problems associated with cloning

Probably and I'd also like to find someone that could say the thing! Now that would be a feat worthy of recognition.

Good point (with those new HDD disks in the making we are talking serious storage in a really small place already). Could it be named by hand? No. Do we have the processing power capable of naming a full DNA strand? Probably but who would waste their time? Still, I'd love to see it

That would be interesting too see; one for every person on the planet would be a hell of a lot of books! They can't even agree on a name for a semi-complex compound so they have little hope of ever getting a name (nor would they want too I hope!)

Hmm interesting question. I believe you want to look into something called [acr=Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion]VSEPR[/acr] It sounds like a homework question so I'll point you too some links the rest it down too you http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/vsepr/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSEPR Should both help you.

I'll see if I can explain (but don't count on it ) Electronegativity is a measure of how much an atom tries to draw electrons in a bond towards its self. The periodic trend for this is going across a row in a periodic table we generally increase the elecronegativity of the atom. This falls of after group VI because then we have the noble gasses who's electronegativity is 0. So lets look at one of your examples: [ce]HBr[/ce] In this molecule we have a hydrogen bonded too a halogen; bromine. In this case bromine is the most electronegative (with a value of 2.8 compared too the value 2.1 for hydrogen) and so the electrons in the H-Br bond will be more drawn towards the bromine than the hydrogen. This means the bond is polarised towards the bromine molecule. From here we can actually calculate the bond type by working out the difference in electronegativity between hydrogen and bromine but I don't think you need that based on your question. Just in case your interested this bond is a strongly covalent bond, we know this because: [math]|2.8-2.1| < 2[/math] If the electronegativity difference is less than two the bond will show gradually more and more covalent characteristic, if its above 2 then it will show more and more ionic characteristics. If its exactly two the bond will act as both a covalent and an ionic bond in varying cases Not sure if that helps at all.

I bet plenty of people know about different parts of the immune system here but you'll need to be a little more specific about what information your looking for

Your point is well taken Woelen, thanks for pointing it out! Seeing the level of the question I'd guess it was in aqueous solution thankfully

Point taken Woelen, we were just told to only show for the ions for the expected product and ignore the oxonium ions and hydroxyl ions. I've no idea why because I agree with you (and would write the full equation anyway) but that's just what we were told Maybe because in reactions like this the (acid + base) water is always formed so it can generally be ignored.

Yea, I think that's the case. Sometimes though the science behind the actual myth is impossible to prove or disprove but sometimes, like the case with pyramidal power and a few others like the baking soda explosion, there seems to be nothing there that has any basis for scientific explanation. Can we say that they are actually proven or disproved? I don't think so, there are always freak-of-nature events but as ajb pointed out, its not intended to be a complete scientific investigation simple a pretty good analysis of the information from which a conclusion is based.

Some double displacement reactions do produce a solid precipitate but not all so this may work in general but its not always true. Net ionic equations are normally pretty simple. We know that an ionic solid dissolves in water because of the polarisation in the sigma bond caused by bonding hydrogen too a strongly electronegative element like Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc. This means that water molecules have an area of slight negative charge over the oxygen atom and a slight positive one over the hydrogens. Add an ionic solid too water and the water molecules will surround each individual ion, pulling it from its lattice by breaking the electrostatic attractions between the ions in the solid and replacing them with hydrogen bonds with the water. When we do an ionic equation we only deal with the ions we are interested in, any other ions in solution are simple ignored. For example, if we were doing the reaction of hydrochloric acid [ce]HCl_{(aq)}[/ce] with magnesium oxide [ce]MgOH_{(aq)}[/ce] we would do this: [ce]2Cl^{-} + Mg^{+} -> MgCl2[/ce] As you can see we ignore the hydroxyl ion and the oxonium ion. Those are ions that are involved but we generally ignore them as the main produce of the reaction is shown.

Yea, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just thought that point should be clarified in case something a little more complex crops up @Asian: Normally you can tell the reaction type without much thought, just look at a few examples and you should see a pattern - this pattern is pretty easy to spot when you know what your looking for

This is true for most simple reactions but for more complex ones this is rarely the case even though the rule still holds for general reference its worth pointing out its not 100% reliable.

Well I don't understand the context in which this is used. Solubility wouldn't normally affect the reaction per se. There are reactions where the products of the displacement would form salts that were insoluble and would thus precipitate out, a great example of this is solutions of potassium iodide and lead nitrate are mixed, you get a bright yellow precipitate. [ce]2KI + Pb(NO3)2 -> PbI2 + 2KNO3[/ce] This is because the solubility of lead iodide is really low in water so it precipitates out. These are pretty simple to predict normally based on periodic trends and group trends too.

Well really speaking from the information given you can pretty much say what the products will be without much work so yes, I'd agree with you. Not always true, if there is insufficient oxygen you can get all manor of things formed, carbon monoxide, pure carbon etc. In this case I'd say don't worry about them and go for complete combustion to [ce]CO2[/ce] and [ce]H2O[/ce] as you said

1. I don't understand the question. 2. Generally you can't unless you know the information before hand. It depends on lots of factors, some you can predict and some are derived by experimentation. For example sometimes a reaction in aqueous solution will produce its products in solution and sometimes as a precipitate. 3. I don't understand the use of the term "Replacement reaction" in this context. Are you referring to when one, more reactive compound displaces another from its compound? In general if you are then for a displacement reaction we have this as the general formula: [ce]XY + Z -> ZY + X[/ce] If Z is more reactive than X then it will displace the element and take its place in the compound. I can't think of a way to explain a synthesis type reaction with a general equation because there are so many possible variants and forms it can take.

true even though apparently they preform the experiment a whole lot more times than is actually show and with more trials with varying parameters its quite fair to say if there is any truth there at all and in this case there didn't seem to be any. Don't get me wrong, I know it cant be proved one way or another as with lots of things.

1. I would suggest you look at the reactivity of tin compared with barium, this should tell you what will happen and thus allow you to find the reactions name. 2. You fail to specify any other information relating too the reaction, in general terms this would be combustion but you fail to specify is this is complete or incomplete combustion. Your formula for Octane is also incorrect. The general formula for an alkane is [ce]C_{n}H{2n+2}[/ce] so the correct formula is [ce]C8H18[/ce] The products of reaction #2 depend on the combustion type though I guess it would mean complete is no other information is given.

I agree with you but in this case there really wasn't much here to prove in the first place from the other threads which debunked this topic already It was meant more as a not of humour than anything else

Ah the joys of Wikipedia: MythBusters episode 32, Pyramid Power

Ah great. Before too long it will be impossible to get any chemicals at all unless you own a special licence to possess them or own a science research company. Not ideal for home chemists that are safety aware...

Well that would be a much simpler method. if you can hydrolyse the polypeptide, in conc. sulphuric acid for about a day and identify the constituents you should be able to work out the Mr of the original polypeptide quite easily

Its a pretty cool video and it shows just how severe the stuff can be I've made milligram quantities of certain flash powders (no instructions will be posted here by me) to study the effects of varying quantities of the components on the rate of reaction. It was an interesting set of experiments I must say but anything more than milligram quantities is bad news if you ask me

That's a pretty amazing statistic, I look forward to seeing the follow up work on exactly what the nitrosamines do in the body. Could be interesting to know.