mississippichem

Guess again. By the way. Earlier I said Ru(I) when the complex actually has a Ru(II) metal center.

Let's try to work through this. Alright so I count six coordination bonds. Ruthenium(I) is a d^5 cation so what is the likely coordination geometry? Next, consider that bpy is a bidentate ligand.

Just a rephrase to add to an already succinct explanation: The work done is path dependent but the change in potential energy is not! This is a major source of confusion among students in thermodynamics courses and even among professionals sometimes when the situation becomes significantly more complicated. An easy pit to fall into for sure.

Yeah thats it. Otherwise the cyclic bromonium intermediate never happens. Without that cyclic flow of electrons there is also a parity violation I believe. We just had to give you some hell Horza for leaving us Horza-less for so long. Good to have you back at the metaphorical hood.

Most chiral centers arise from having a tetrahedral center with four different groups attached to it. This one arises from an unsurpassable rotational barrier around an otherwise freely rotating bond. Im afraid the only way to work through this is by brute force with a pencil or model kit. There aren't THAT many isomers though so it is doable.

Everyone and their mother knows where those electrons are going anyway . Strange that the diagram doesn't show them though.

An amazing act of philanthropy followed by an angry spoiled nephew.

4) People speaking up and being unashamed about disagreements. People in the hotseat replying without getting their feelings hurt and without crying persecution.

Ultimately you are limited by the valence of nitrogen. Nitrogen tends to need 8 valence electrons in it's n=2 level. You can have higher oxides of nitrogen though, most of them just have bridging oxygen atoms. For example [ce] N_{2}O_{5} [/ce]

It might be worth mentioning that processes where dS<0 do not require time to commence "backwards". Some casually refer to entropy as the "arrow of time" and perhaps it is in some sense, for the entire universe anyway. I believe this might be a dangerous analogy though as it can get you into trouble under some circumstances.

I think it's also interesting to note that with all the computing power we have we still can't predict the weather on our own planet very well. Large systems are complicated to state the obvious.

Are you familiar with CFT d-orbital splitting diagrams?

Show where the current model fails with equations and quantitative reasoning. Then your model will be considered. You must provide the motivation first. That's why scientists write introductions in their published articles...to motivate the audience as to why their project is needed/useful/appropriate.

Think mechanistically. Does something need to be protonated or deprotonated in order to get your nucleophile to bite the carbonyl?

The predicted angular momentum for an n=1 electron is wrong in the Bohr model. an empirically demonstrable fact.

An example of physicists doing quack biology? I remember you've mentioned something about the tendency for that to happen in other threads

Depends on your major and what interests you. Debating between chem and phys courses?

Have you made any attempts at getting a good retro-synthesis? Show us some of your attempted work and I'm sure we can help out. It's a policy thing. We don't give answers but we can guide you to the answer. That's more intellectually rewarding for you anyway.

So the product is a liquid? Mind letting us know what the product is and what solvent it is in? If the product is a liquid then it should boil out at it's regular b.p. I made my last post with the assumption that you were trying to remove solvent from a solid solute. If your product is a liquid, my last post is moot.

Who actually does radio spectroscopy on bacterial samples? That should give a spectrum so complex that it would be practically illegible. Maybe this is a technique I'm not aware of?

Did the literature give a boiling point for your product, or for the solution you are trying to distill? If it just gave a boiling point for the compound and not your solution, then that's no good for the distillation and we can help you calculate or approximate the boiling point of your solution to be distilled.

I think all disciplines are of equal importance really. We'll never be able to explain gene sequencing with string theory and we'll never be able to predict the fate of the cosmos with organic chemistry. I think the lines are becoming more and more blurry though which is a good thing. Take for example physical chemistry and chemical physics. I do the former but work with people who do the latter. I've found that our primary difference is what department we are registered with . The subject matter is almost identical, especially in the computational science world.

[ce] Si \rightarrow Si [/ce] You have a point. However I'm standing by my superconductor statement: [ce] Y_{2}O_{3} +2BaO_{2} + 3CuO \rightarrow YBa_{2}Cu_{3}O_{7} [/ce] And yes, the Yittrium atoms don't balance. There is some other yittriate product.

Arsenic is toxic as a phosphorus mimic. You need not take this out to nuclear physics to account for it's toxicity. Though some things are toxic because of their radioactive decay products. Like certain isotopes of Radon IIRC.

Calculate solubility product constants for the two reactants and hypothetical product.