mississippichem

Alright, for the first question lets consider the balanced reaction: [ce] AgCl_{(s)} \rightleftarrows Ag^{+}_{(aq)} + Cl^{-}_{(aq)} [/ce] so, [math] K_{sp} [/math] is given by: [math] K_{sp} = \frac{[Ag^{+}][Cl^{-}]}{[AgCl]} [/math] The activity of the solid [ce]AgCl[/ce] is so close to unity that we can neglect it so we have: [math] K_{sp} = [Ag^{+}][Cl^{-}] [/math] I've brought you very close to an answer on the first question, now just remember that these concentration come in units of [math]mol \cdot L^{-1} [/math]. Try this one out, then get back to me about the second question.

Any combination of O, C, and H that doesn't fit the empirical formula [ce] C_{n}H_{2n}O_{n} [/ce] would fall under that category.

Any fluorinated halogens probably come close. I know [ce] ClF_{3} [/ce] is corrosive, toxic, an oxidizer, and is generally scary. However, it is not flammable though it can support the combustion of almost anything.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll look into some of these. I've only given up on formal analysis temporarily. I have a huge interest in spectroscopy as well as electronic structure theory so anything more I can learn about Fourier analysis in addition to the basics I have now will be appreciated in grad school.

All of quantum mechanics and pretty much every bit of physics since then.

You have established that the goal of psychological and physical torture is the same. I don't dispute that. I also don't dispute that psychological interrogation techniques are in fact torture. Other than that, what is your argument? My post merely conjectured that psychological torture is less morally reprehensible than torture that inflicts permanent medical harm. Also, address my point about how killing isn't a war crime but water-boarding is. Is there a justification for that? I think the difference is obvious. If you actually drown the prisoner...he dies. I agree by the definition of effective you are using. Most torture sessions do not yield useful information. However, if "effective" is defined as increasing the odds obtaining some useful information from a given prisoner [who has useful information] then I would have to say it was effective.

It is. You are correct Huh? No, the HUP is really only an issue at the quantum level. There is no way around it.

Don't know much about job talks. You are further along in your career than me. But I have noticed that good science speakers tend to repeat important points in various ways throughout the talk. This makes sense especially if your audience is full of non-experts. I would say introduce your main point of interest, be sure to mention it again in the middle, and then drive it home hard at the end. That way the audience doesn't get the: "Hey that's great but what is it you were talking about again?"-syndrome. Good luck! From what I know of you, you seem passionate about your work and I'm sure that will come across to the audience and work in your favor.

It's not that simple. That's why John Cuthber correctly said that your budget is far too small to get that done. We don't just stick your milk in a machine and get a printout that says what the toxin is. We would have to subject the sample to a plethora of analytical tests, both analytical and spectrographic, to slowly rule out toxins until we finally have an idea. Then we do the mass spec run that probably costs more than your stated budget in itself. Unless you've done something wrong GO TO THE POLICE. The person poisoning your milk is committing a felony. The police have trained forensic chemists that are probably very good at finding food poisoning toxins, and the best part is, their services are free. There is no other advice I can give that I would feel comfortable with than: call the freakin' cops.

Introductory Real Analysis: Andreĭ Nikolaevich Kolmogorov, Sergeĭ Vasilʹevich Fomin The book was decent from my humble vantage point. I think the student [myself] was the problem. Part of the reason for me giving up on analysis was that I couldn't yet see any application for it. I'm alright with pure mathematics, but usually one ends up with an application at some point. I didn't see it happening. That's where the goals of scientists and mathematicians diverge [pardon the pun]. I use math as a means to an end where as mathematicians use science to create interesting math problems, or much of the time, they just use math to create interesting math. I think we need mathematicians where they might not need us. Oh well, at least engineers and physicians need us. You ajb, you're somewhere in between the two right?

In the classroom. You often get nice integer exponents like 0,1,2,3. In those cases you get the luxury of applying one of the common integrated rate laws: [math] -\frac{d[X]}{dt}=-k_{1}[X] [/math] [math] \frac{d[X]}{[X]}=-k_{1} dt [/math] [math] \int\frac{d[X]}{[X]}=\int- k_{1} dt [/math] [math] \ln[X]=-k_{1}t+r_{0} [/math] This help you isolate the effects of one reactant's concentration on the rate. But often in reality, you get fractional order exponents that can't be integrated so nicely like Captain Panic said. More qualitatively, think about the exponents as being an expression of how strongly the rate of a reaction depends on the concentration of that species.

I picked up a book on analysis once. I read about three chapters, got mentally exhausted and gave the book to a friend. Talk about a gift that becomes a curse .

So perhaps we can conclude that [math] \Psi ^{*}\Psi_{remote} [/math] is not [math] \textbf{L}^{2} [/math] integrable?

TV remotes also display similar phenomena. Remote controls are like virtual photons. Finding a remote is akin to violating [math] E = \sqrt{m^{2}c^{4} + p^{2}c^{2}} [/math] So if you find a remote, you must give back the borrowed [math] E [/math] by losing a remote tomorrow to prevent a causality violation.

Two ways to go to jail: Next time you are pulled over by a policeman for speeding do one of the following: 1) Argue that his velocity measurement was made from a non-inertial reference frame. 2) Argue that the product of the position and momentum uncertainties he's claiming is less than [math] \hbar [/math] and therefore in violation of Heisenberg.

It is somewhat of a difficult thing. We can run thermochemistry in a bomb and observe heat changes, this can get complicated when intermediates are involved though as the heat capacity of the mixture varies as the reaction progresses. This is only done if you want the gory detail. Here is a simpler approach. For a general reaction: [math] \sum \Delta H^{0}_{rxn} = \sum \Delta H^{0}_{products}- \sum \Delta H^{0}_{reactants} [/math] We can derive any of these summation terms by adding up all the elementary steps involved. For example, the ionization and solvation of sodium metal would be as follows: [math] \sum \Delta H^{0} = \Delta H^{0}_{atomization}+\Delta H^{0}_{ionization}+\Delta H^{0}_{solvation} [/math] Atomization, is the energy input required to break a sodium atom from the crystal lattice. Ionization is the energy input required to remove an electron from the outer orbital. Solvation is the final step where the ion finds a solvent coordination shell and is exothermic. We could go into more detail than that. Technically, energy input is required to break the interactions between solvent molecules. Finding a detailed reaction/energy profile for a reaction can be quite difficult and requires a lot of kinetics. After a while at university, you can get a feel for what the reaction progress/energy diagram would look like for certain reactions. Intermediates usually causes "valley's" in the profile and transition states cause "humps". It's possible to develop a somewhat intuitive feel for some of these things. EDIT: All the little [math] ^{0} [/math] super scripts just denote standard conditions.

Woops, posted in the wrong thread. Sorry [facepalm]

Sounds like car salesmen and insurance brokers .

It's going to be an interesting Republican Primary for sure. So far, I've got my money on Paul or Cane. Both of those guys seemed to get a good audience reception at the first GOP debate. Paul has the ability to steal some libs from Obama's ticket, and Cane seems to have a strong political personality (but NO political experience which could really hurt or really help). I think Pawlenty will soon be marginalized because he is just more of the same, and has skeletons in his closet like this. Though they may be trivial, I doubt CNN and Fox will agree. I think the days of the Christian social conservatives running the GOP may be on the decline [slowly but surely]. Eventually, they'll have to capture the young fiscally conservative social liberals like myself who are becoming more abundant. I think Paul had the ability to do that and keep the traditional business vote [if he can keep Rand's loud mouth quiet]. Christian social conservatives would rather vote for Paul's libertarian social policy than vote for Obama. Pawlenty doesn't stand a chance in hell of being able to capture this voting block.

It's just a mixture of amporphous carbon and some partially dehydrated carbohydrates. There is no official chemical nomenclature for such a mixture. That does give you more information on the subject. Just take surcrose and imagine all the dehydration reactions that could occur. Your putty is a mixture of those products along with fully dehydrated carbon. Further analysis would require spectroscopy of the putty.

Argument from authority. Also a logical fallacy. Einstein was really smart but was wrong about lots of things. In fact, Neils Bohr dominated Einstein in a debate about quantum mechanics and probabilistic outcomes. So just because Einstein said it, does not make it law. You explain things using non-standard physics terminology, AND YOU REFUSE TO USE MATHEMATICS. You clearly don't even understand the most basic of Newtonian mechanics. How are you supposed to be a credible source? You have been prompted to offer up a mathematical treatment for your theory, at least four times that I can count. You just simply refuse. You are dodging the question because you don't have an answer, do you? You made up the A=mc^2 nonsense on the spot and we called you on it. It's gonna take a lot more math than that. It is, the Michaelson-Morley experiment took care of that. For some reason you seem to claim that that experiment leads to the opposite result. You are just making that up too. Aren't you? In fact, I would be willing to bet that don't even understand the standard treatment or theory of that experiment. If you did, you would see how obviously off base you are. ...yeah the rest of this post doesn't merit much of a response as it is mostly just hand-waiving mixed with a little word salad. Learn some physics, post some LaTex, or bug off. Your theory falls on deaf ears hear. We are the scientific mainstream; and yes we are involved in the conspiracy to repress your work. Have you ever even seen a physics journal article? They don't even have that many words! They are mostly equations, diagrams, and tables. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? WHY HAVE YOU NOT POSTED ANY EQUATIONS? I'M WRITING THIS IN LARGE FONT TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE NOT BLIND! POST SOME MATH OR NOBODY WILL CARE ABOUT WHAT NONSENSE YOU HAVE TO HAND WAVE ABOUT. SHOW US THE MATH!!!

Did you ever quit beating your wife?

Alright, lets assume that is true. You also claim that: So then you have contradicted [math] \frac{1}{\mu _{0} \varepsilon _{0}} = c [/math] which is very well established and is true for a vacuum. So then, why does [math] c [/math] not vary according to [math] \frac{1}{r^{2}} [/math] from a gravitational source. If the aether exists, and mass or matter displaces the aether; then c would be variant according distortions in the aether. What I'm saying is, it is established that c is constant in all vacuum conditions. In your model, c would change as we get further from the Earth. Reconcile this.

That sounds nice. But people have had vices since the dawn of recorded history. You've yet to establish that a society without vices can even exist. So instead of the government listening to the people...you think the people should listen to the government? IMO, it's not about allowing people their fixes. It's about not locking people up for victimless crimes and us not spending our valuable resources on prosecuting these people. We are biologically engineered to desire sexual intercourse. I can't in good conscience send someone to jail or fine them for doing what they can to fulfill this need as long as it isn't rape. Drugs are a bit of a different story. But look how effective the government has been at stopping illegal drug trade. They can't do it! Whenever there is demand for a product, legal or not, there will be a supplier; Always! One of my economics teachers told me about black market French cheese sold in Moscow back allies during the height of soviet Russia. Why not just make that supplier a legitimate tax payer? By the way. If you want sex after a long day at work, and the wife refuses; Is it prostitution if you promise to buy her new shoes in exchange for a good time? What about strippers? You are paying to see them naked which arouses you and is therefore a sexual act and not illegal.