mississippichem

People like to poke fun at Wikipedia, but I'm an advocate as well; especially for recent events. 100 citations is good enough for me. Notice that if you watch Fox News or MSNBC for long enough they start to interview ealier anchors and refer to them by crazy titles like "middle east correspondent", giving the impression of citing an expert. But I'm onto their game, that "correspondent " was the anchor from the hour before! Hat's off to Wikipedia for not insulting our intelligence like cable news! What wikipedia lacks in accuracy sometimes, it makes up for in reference. Mistakes are usually corrected quickly and they always give enough citations for you to be your own skeptic [pun not intended Mr. Skeptic] and get the information straight from the source.

I don't see a moral dilemma with pornography as long as all the participants are adult and willing. If parents don't want their child looking at certain things, then they certainly have the right, both legally and morally, to put a content filter on their computer. I've always been an advocate of allowing individual families decide what is appropriate for their children. I think it is ridiculous to expect the government to enforce moral standards in entertainment media. Such things always get decided by panels of legislators or bureaucrats and we get strange or silly results. For example, on American TV, it is lawful to say "ass", it is lawful to say "hole", but if you say "asshole" then the audience hears "ass****". One would think that sticking two allowed words together results in an allowed word. Back on topic, sexually explicit material should be labeled as such and individual parents or guardians should decide whether or not they mind their children watching pornography.

Are you sure it's not hydrogen bonding and strong dipole-dipole interactions? I have seen, and I know that it is. I doubt any teacher or professor would accept "God did it" as a valid explanation. That's the problem with belief in a god, it makes one get used to accepting very poor or vague explanations for complex or finesse phenomena. Don't try and say god made dipole-dipole interactions either because I have a naturalistic explanation for that as well.

I would ask him why he gave us "Honor thy father and mother" rather than letting us in on the whole general relativity thing a couple of thousand years early. I would also ask why an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being seems to so childishly need the approval and admiration of mere ignorant humans. Finally I would ask, "If you wanted me to believe in you so bad, then why did you give me a brain with a tendency toward analytical and rational thought, an attribute that clearly leads to me not believing in you!?"

Though it could be, I doubt this is a equilibrium process, in practice anyway. There is a large electrochemical potential difference between water and hydrogen peroxide. This is also a radical reaction which is one more reason to suggest this is not an equilibrium process. Not to say that radical reactions are not reversible, many of the nitrogen oxides undergo radical equilibrium reactions that are heat controlled. So microscopic reversibility still applies here, but homolytic bond dissociation energies tend to be high and have large kinetic barriers.

Or not. Very roughly a virus is an "almost living thing" that is comprised of a nucleic acid surrounded by a protein capsid that uses other host cells to reproduce. I don't know what you're talking about honestly, viruses don't come from harmful chemicals or "damages to the psychological mind".

A quality question Not always, the decomposition of some very unstable species can be exothermic overall. Bond breaking always requires energy input, so is always an endothermic step (a chemical bond by definition is a sort of potential well). However, another bond could immediately form with another atom; an exothermic step. So it really depends on if you're talking about individual mechanistic steps, or entire chemical processes.

Short answer: the rapid oxidation of organic compounds. Oxygen steals electrons from said organic compounds. The final products (if combustion is complete) are [ce]H_{2}O[/ce] and [ce]CO_{2}[/ce]. These reactions give off heat so are said to be exothermic. Another point of interest is that these reactions happen extremely fast, surpassed only by the speed of acid base reactions. Acid base reactions are faster only because protons can tunnel between solvent molecules.

True, i guess what I said was true but not useful. Peroxides are not a good starting material to make peroxides .

Very wrong. see Neutron Reflector

I think you might be more likely to get hydrogen peroxide if the oxygen species was a peroxide ion [ce]O_{2}^{2-}[/ce], not totally sure though. Combining and oxide ion, [ce]O^{2-}[/ce], with water to give hydrogen peroxide though; that reaction has a very positive Gibbs energy, making it extremely unfavorable. I'm saying the same thing Horza2002 said but from a thermodynamic standpoint rather than kinetic.

Or whatever you call it could be a peroxide ion, superoxide ion, dioxygen radical, dioxygen diradical, or a dioxygen radical ion. Please be more specific.

This reminds me of other stupid conventions like engineers drawing current flow in the direction the electrons are not going! Forcing me to reverse sign convention every time I do electrochemistry. Thanks a lot guys . However I will give credit where credit is due, they did devise the gradian system which I don't use but find to be quite clever.

I'm going with this explanation. Solubility of enolates in organic solvents is usually a borderline case anyway. It would be interesting to know what the active form of the catalyst was though which might have some implications as to how it could interact with counter-ions.

Chemistry should be learned just like the other science, from the bottom up. It will be hard to understand the principles behind organic chemistry without a solid foundation in the principles of general chemistry. But yes, after a while one might start to notice patterns in the structures of organic compounds. The majority of organic compounds are made up of about twenty or so small collections of molecules called functional groups. If you scroll through organic chemistry threads around this forum you will see these names tossed around: amine, ester, carboxylic acid, ether, alcohol etc. If one wants to learn organic chemistry, then learning the IUPAC nomenclature system and memorizing the common functional groups is a great place to start.

Some calculus books come with emphasis on things like geometric proofs. They usually titles like "Calculus with analytic geometry".

I just heard on NPR (sorry no link found), that some experts were considering spraying boric acid solution all over the core. I don't know a whole lot about nuclear physics but if I remember correctly [ce]^{10}B[/ce] has a large neutron capture cross section and readily captures neutrons to form [ce]^{11}B[/ce]. They believe this might help bring down the neutron population and cool down the rods. This is the same principle that is used in boron neutron capture therapy, an anti-cancer treatment.

Alright then, lets see the said maths. So far you've posted a couple of tens of lines of word salad and dodged a question. You're not convincing me very well at this point. I'd like to see your justification for:

The rate equation you've made for the overall reaction is not necessarily true: [math] \frac{d[N_{2}]}{dt}=-k[NH_{3}]^{2}[H_{2}]^{-2} [/math] Remember the order of each reactant in a rate equation can only be determined by stoichiometry if that equation is for an elementary step. Show me how you derived that rate law. To check, you can always derive integrated rate laws to see if everything is internally consistent: [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] *where r_0 is the instantaneous initial rate After deriving those for every particular reactant you can use graphical methods to make all the curves fit. That integrated rate law above is for a 1st order elementary step. The math is a little different for 0th and 2nd order steps.

Nice rant hypervalent...but it was a good rant , at least worthy of a rep point. About the TLC, I'll add that I once saw a reaction where hand held UV-TLC showed only one component but GC showed 4! Given, one of our GCs has a very long tube so our resolution is quite high. I think the future for O-chem in this respect are in the hyphenated techniques. GC-MS, HPLC-NMR and even the glorious MS-C13-NMR-H1-NMR (when you get near the machine, you need to bow down and worship or it will smite you with it's 400,000 Gauss magnetic field). It may seem trivial, but being to run two types of NMR on the same sample [using proton suppression for the 13C of course] followed by an immediate mass spec is unmatched.

Another problem with natural products, is that sometimes you are never really sure you have just one compound. Sometimes a mixture can cleverly disguise itself as a pure compound with very similar solubility or strange mass-spec fragmentation patterns.

Interesting. It's a question of which effect wins out, less electron density, or one two more electrons total. Hm. I'll Scifinder it as well. I used the term shielding to refer to the notion that the electrophilicity is ultimately from the oxygen nucleus. Less electron density leading to less "shielding" of the nucleus' coulombic charge. Sorry if that caused confusion.

They should be more electrophilic. The carbonyl in a dialkyl carbonate has oxygens "pulling" electron density on both sides as opposed to just one in the ester. I imagine the carbonyl carbon of dialkyl-carbonate is barely shielded at all relatively speaking.

Yes, we currently have a powerhouse chemistry membership right now at SFN. We are giving chemicalforums.net a run for their money! Feel free to ask questions.

Sounds to me like you know your "plasma jet" theory has no merit. If it did, the you would have no problem letting me try and attack it. Scientist have to learn to swallow egos or check them at the door. Scientific criticism is not personal, but harsh attempts at falsifying are par for the course. The best scientists are the ones who are the best at catching bad ideas. It shows a strong set of analytical skills. Knowing what doesn't work can be just as valuable as knowing what does. We have that here. It's called the speculations subforum. You are allowed to kick around any idea you want. There are just no guarantees it won't get smashed. If you come to the table with an open mind and willingness to learn and be corrected, then the people here at SFN are more than willing [maybe even eager?] to discuss your theory. Just leave your soapbox at home and be prepared to discuss your theory based on its merit alone. Remember, the responsibility lies with you to overturn existing theories.