aommaster

Haha.. I hope you know that I posted this question more than 4 years ago, when I was still in school. (...and looking back at it now, my typing was absolutely HORRIBLE!)

Hey Kaytie11 I'm personally a night person myself. I hate waking up early in the morning (but I hardly have a choice because of lectures ). I usually stay up till around 3-4 AM which is when I go to bed. I know some people (my mom, for example) who just can't stay up as late as I can. It's a natural 'body-clock' thing where the body decides (and in some cases) wants to go to sleep. As for your age, I suggest you get plenty of sleep. As YT said previously, you're growing up, and you need the sleep. Once you're older, you'll automatically find out what kind of person you are (be it a night person, or a morning person). Oh yeah... and keep away from smoking, energy drinks, soft drinks, and sources of caffeine... you don't need them

I believe Hoffman degradations also reduce carbon chains, but I believe you need to have amide groups in.

Thanks John! Would you happen to know the mechanism for the decarboxylation?

Hey YT! I've been busy at university. I'm double majoring in Chemical Engineering and Chemistry and doing a minor in Math... so, I have a lot less free time than I had The conversion to Benzoic acid makes sense, but I'm not exactly sure how the redcution would work. You could use a variety of substances for the reduction (Sodium Borohydride, or Lithium Aluminium Hydirde would also work). But as I see it, you'd compeltely reduce the benzoic acid to Benzyl (or phenyl) methanol, instead of removing the carbon group from it. Unless I've gotten the mechanism completely wrong...

Hey guys! I'm wondering whether or not it is possible to be able to eliminate the methyl group from toluene by using a relatively low amount of energy/reagents. I am well aware that this reaction is not favourable. The overall reaction I'm looking for would be: Methyl Benzene ->Benzene + CH4 (I'm guessing the other H would be obtained from solution) I'm considering the probability that the reaction may be impossible due to the fact that you'll need to have a CH3 leaving group. I'm also thinking that a Hoffman degradation wouldn't work because you need to use Amines? Thanks

Are you referring to Lenz's Law? If so, consider this: Does this mean that every magnet can only generate a certain amount of current, ragardless of the strength? If that is the case, then it makes sense that a stronger magnet generates more current because you are applying a bigger force, and hence, the conditions are not satisfied. I hope I explained myself properly?

Hmmm... didn't realise that! Does that mean that the force required for moving a magnet across a wire is dependant on the strength of the magnetic field? Is there an equation that would allow you to work out the force required? One more thing.... does this mean that the amount of current induced in the wire is contsant, only it is the force that makes the difference? Thanks a lot for your time

Okay, let me try and explain what I meant: Take it that you want to induce a current in a wire, let's say to power a very tiny bulb. You are given two magnets, a strong one and a weak one. Which magnet would you choose to make the bulb light up the most? Most obviously the strong one, as for the same motion, you produce a geater current and hence a greater amount of electrical energy. Does this make sense? Or am I talking a whole load of rubbish?

Hi guys! I am pretty sure I am going to regret it, but I'll ask anyway! Let's say, you have two magnetics. One is an NIB (rare earth magnet, really powerful) and one is a fridge magnet (vey weak). Now, you also have a fixed lenth of wire connected to an ammeter/voltmeter. If you run each of the magnets down the wire, at the same speed, the rare earth magnet produces a greater current, we all know that. Consider this: Your kinetic energy is being changed by the magnetic field into kinetic energy. This means that the NIB magnet is has a greater efficiency. Please correct me if I am wrong in any of the statements above, but, what exactly is going on here? Does this mean that you could get a magnet that is 99.9% efficient? Thanks for your time guys.

Thanks for that. I didn't check the ISBN number. I'll just make sure on that before I place the order. Thanks alot for that guys!

And a sixth one called a Fermionic Condensate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermionic_condensate

Thanks alot for your help guys. I'll try and get the Fabric of the Cosmos first, before the other books. Thanks alot for your time!

I think I know an average amount of the string theory, because I already watched the series, which talks about the string theory in breif. I know for sure that I wouldn't even dare to try and read the book without some background knowledge on the string theory. Thanks alot for that tip though!

Haha... same here!