mississippichem

Are you familiar with the maxwell relations? What is that pV term describing? Think about it. Then think about what differential you would integrate to get that pV term. How is that differential part of U(S, V, n). Finding the enthalpy should then be you're next step after finding the internal energy. Please show some attempted work though or I can't continue to help.

I purpose an experiment: Phi for All: send me a private message containing only one simple sentence. Liviu: use your alleged abilities to read this message telepathically. Then Phi for All can post the private message here on the public forum. There will be a timestamp to ensure no trickery on our part.

He should have seen this argument coming

There are many wet techniques to test for specific functionalities. However mass spec and NMR are usually required top draw definitive conclusions about structure. What kind of equipment do you have access to? any good handbook of analytical chemistry would be super beneficial. I do lots of spectroscopy (its kind of inherently the nature of my work) so Im probably not the best person to ask. John Cuthber seems to be knowledgeable of many wet techniques, perhaps he will chime in here.

Magnetic resonance spectroscopy? As in NMR or ESR? those don't require a radio tracer. In the lab anyway. Some people do use gadolinium NMR contrast agents though for NMR. It increases the j-coupling values and spreads out chemical shifts. *I think gadolinium, someone help me out here.

I agree. Topic moved to genetics.

I agree. Gold is a soft ion while fluoride ions are very hard (if anyone still uses HSAB ) I don't know for sure but I can easily see a gold fluoride complex getting quickly hydrolyzed in water.

Its just simply impossible at the energy densities typical of electro chemistry

Im sorry that all you Europeans have to see her on your TVs as well. Maybe we should just ship her to Denmark our something and let her be the EU's problem .

Chemists should stick to electron games and leave nuclear transformations to you guys.

After a quick read of this post, there is one thing I see that sticks out. I can't see [ce] NH_{2}^{-} [/ce] ions having any significant existence in aqueous solution. They would be protonated extremely fast. Can you find an equilibrium constant for the amide ion getting protonated in water?

Concerning your comments on bonding: All covalent bonds (except homonuclear bonds) have some degree of ionic character. However most ionic interactions have almost no covalent character. Evaluate an overlap integral for a sodium 3s orbital and a chlorine 3p orbital. You'll find that the bonding linear combination of those orbitals isn't occupied to any degree that matters. The sodium 3s ionization energy is also far to low to allow said molecular orbital to have an appreciable lifetime. The redox couple is very favored.

Hal, Congratulations, you've hosted the silliest thread to ever appear on sfn. Now what is your agenda? You are playing semantics now with the whole liquification/condensation thing. Give one example of how Hal's melting is worth a damn. We don't just make up terms for giggles like linguists. Scientific vocabulary is functional and precise. There must be a need for a new term and your term is exactly synonymous with liquification. Seriously, you must be trolling right? Stop trying to make hypervalentiodine and captain panic look stupid. I assure you that their knowledge of chemistry is superior to yours.

How could the concept of Hal's melting make anything in science more clear or more convenient? To be useful it must because it doesn't contribute to theory in any meaningful way.

I've used it to clean ridiculously dirty glassware and it is usually red when fresh and yellows over time. Make it in small amounts and use it fresh.

Did you even read my post? Well argued.

There is no way you can know what someone else is or isn't considering. That is a very cheap and fallacious style of debate. Its difficult to describe even simple concepts like velocity without mathematics. How fast is an object moving? Fast? Really Fast? Not that fast? Without a quantitative description, we can't even really define velocity, much less agree about how much an object has. I also think that you are neglecting the fact that people who go against the "pack" are wrong much more often than right. By the way don't ask me for a statistic to prove my assertion because that would require the use of mathematics which would make us both members of the narrow minded pack of the establishment that actually require evidence to accept a claim.

Pincho has been banned as per his request.

My teachers often encouraged questioning of authority by requiring that we work proof or "show that [insert equation here]" problems.

Well I'm a bit late as it seems you've already got the hang of it...anyway I was going to suggest that you talk about the trend in reaction enthalpies [imath] \Delta H [/imath] of group I metals and their reaction with water. The reaction gets more exothermic down the series, so all other things held constant this is reasonable measure of the group I metals tendency to lose an electron as the reaction is essentially [ce]M \rightarrow M^{+} + e^{-} [/ce]. This might give your essay a competitive edge on those of your classmates . This is basically an equivalent argument to the electrochemical reactivity series mentioned by hypervalent_iodine but in terms of thermo. It's always nice to see it from a different angles I guess.

In science, you are not the judge of what is fact. Your peers are. It is your job to present your ideas to your peers and in turn they will attempt to poke holes in your idea in the hopes that it will be definitively overturned or confirmed. This is scientific method 101 You've yet to present any science in any of your numerous speculations. Pretty diagrams of bubbles and igloos don't cut it. You must embrace mathematics if you are to expect anyone in the physical science (namely physics) community to embrace your ideas. Science is hard. That's why so few are successful at it. It requires above average intelligence, obsessive dedication, long hours, tears, and blood. Seriously!? So are your really positing that you are the only true scientist in the community of millions of scientists? You might want to rethink that. If after a long pondering you still believe this to be true then you are in for a short career. I mean no offense. This is just true and I imagine every PhD here on SFN agrees with me. Snow flakes are not created from gravity. This is below physics/chemistry 101 and is demonstrably false. Wikipedia: snow flake You're lack of ability to balance units or even carry out the most rudimentary of calculations does not lend itself to this statement being taken seriously.

Are we assuming diathermic boundaries here? The question as posted is a bit ambiguous I think.

All of this is complete word salad. Who are you talking to? I hope for your sake that you are trolling.

I don't believe you. Show how your theory predicts the mass of the electron. If it truly answers all questions this should be trivial.

Show us some of your attempted work. For the first question, try to covert grams of urea to moles of urea. I'll try to address the other questions after you get the first as the rest of the questions depend on that value.