mississippichem

Skeptic, you ruined it! Santa Clause is most definitely not bringing you any presents this year . Hey; some people pray to Jesus, but Jesus has never brought me a damn thing on December 25th. I pray to Santa. He's the one giving out the real miracles.

Hardcore Bebop Jazz from the 1940's (especially Charlie Parker), various classical musics (preferably Baroque), Bob Dylan, The Beatles, Johnny Cash, Squarepusher, Opeth, Mastodon, Jaco Pastouris, Bela Fleck and the Flecktones. I could continue but they only get more obscure... EDIT: Can't leave out Metallica, that would be rock n' roll blasphemy .

What concentration of acid are you using? I've seen the [ce] HCl_{(aq)} + Zn_{(s)} [/ce] reaction proceed sluggishly with dilute acid. Have you tried icing the far end of the tube to get faster hydrogen flow?

I think if we ever want clean and cheap power, we're going to need a menagerie of solutions all employed simultaneously. I feel as though everyone seems to be looking for a magic bullet when it probably doesn't exist. If we attack the problem from both sides (clean energy, [ce]CO_2[/ce] reduction), we will be better off. I feel that the OP does strike a chord though; solving the clean energy problem automatically wipes out the other. I think the answer lies in local solutions. If you live near a rushing river...hydroelectric. If you live in a desert...solar. If you live anywhere (or evidently, in France)...nuclear. Of course I'm making a grotesque over simplification, there are still dollars and thermodynamics to reconcile. However, there are practical solutions that are feasible right now. There is a trend now in Israel of powering water heaters with a small solar panel on the roof. That is a low-tech, simple solution much like John B's "solar-mirror-water electrolyzer" in spirit. All that to say that a lot of small solutions can add up to a complete solution. Energy product makers and service providers should stop waiting on the energy revolution and start making those first painful yet important steps.

[ce]LiAlH_{4}[/ce] ("lithium aluminum hydride") will reduce acetic acid back to ethanol. [ce]NaBH_{4}[/ce] ("sodium borohydride") will reduce the acetic acid but will stop at acetaldehyde. Both reagents are very water sensitive and are usually used as solutions in ether.

I saw someone conduct a fluorination reaction using [ce] ClF_3 [/ce] once. Scary stuff; Once it starts burning it will not extinguish, sand doesn't help either because the stuff is so reactive it fluorinates [ce] SiO_2 [/ce].

-Hmm...strange. I would try de-gassing the water. -Or, you're soap could be so concentrated that it's messing around with colligative properties, just a guess though. -Perhaps your metal isn't finely divided enough. Maximizing surface area should increase hydrogen production per unit time.

I think there has been discussion about this before on the forum. The consensus among the resident experts seemed to be that it takes way more time and energy to debunk theories from amateurs that don't understand already established principle than it does to point out inconsistencies in a theory from trained scientist to trained scientist. If the scientific establishment gave equal review time to every theory that came along, nothing would ever get accomplished. Amateurs often lack the rigorous mathematical and research training that facilitates finesse debate over disputed topics. Things that are often obvious to physical scientists are still up for debate among amateurs. If I came out with a "theory" that the moon was actually shaped like a cube, anyone in their right mind would dismiss that as quackery instantly; even non-scientist types. Well, when someone comes out and says they've built a perpetual motion machine with an overbalanced wheel, scientists see that as being about as valid as the cubic moon I mentioned previously. Amateurs often don't realize or acknowledge the well established principle that if the math doesn't line up, it doesn't happen. It takes way too much time to debunk someone's stupid idea about string theory when they don't understand differential equations. It's much easier to just say: show me the math...Oh! no math...come back once you've educated yourself further.

I wouldn't take the $66,000 estimate too seriously. I've seen similar numbers for the average salary of a PhD chemist. However, if you do some digging, I've seen BS level chemistry jobs that offer $70,000. I've also seen senior scientist positions for large companies, like oil companies that start at $250,000. I'm currently considering a civilian job with the US navy (I'll be finished with a bachelor's in chemistry next semester) from what I've seen, the pay for the military science jobs is among the most competitive around. I'd rather not say what the starting salary they offer is, but I'll say you would be pleasantly surprised. Just remember that the high paying gigs are also the most competitive. It's good that you've already begun on some undergraduate research. Come job hunting time, you'll have some nice resume ammunition if you managed to get your name on an abstract.

Also found a nice PDF of an experiment done concerning catalase inhibition with hydroxyammonium chloride. The procedure is from 1935 and the techniques are ancient history but the science is still relevant. Catalase Inhibitors By the way, I'm a big fan of catalase. Any natural catalysts that operates at a rate that close to the diffusion limit is awesome in my book. EDIT:My links appears to be broken, google catalase inhibitors and my link is the third hit.

The metals near the lithium side of the series are more likely to give up electrons: they are more likely to be oxidized, so they are the strong reducing agents. The metals near the gold side of the series are less likely to give up electrons: they are less likely to be oxidized, so they are weak reducing agents. The series actually continues past gold but it gets to metalloids and non-metals which are the stronger oxidizing agents and have a tendency to be reduced. So one could say for example that lithium, being a strong reducing agent is a very poor oxidizing agent. One could also say that gold is a stronger oxidizing agent than lithium because gold is from the weak reducing agent side of the series. The further apart two metals are on the activity series, the more electrochemically favored the reaction is between them. So in that sense metals on the table that are far apart from each other are likely to show a reaction. The opposite is true of metals close to each other on the activity series. There are many other factors to consider in reality, but this should suffice for your assignment.

You say you want to include some material about enzymes. Do you plan to use catalase to decompose [ce]H_{2}O{2}[/ce]? There are some very interesting kinetics there. The mechanism is a bit tricky so look out for strange rate equations.

From Sigma Aldrich USA (prices may vary slightly by country): Lithium Hydroxide monohydrate (99.95%) : 32.30 USD for 10 grams Lead (mixed) oxide (99.99%): 41.41 USD for 5 grams Lead(II) oxide (99.0%): 43.50 USD for 10 grams Lead(IV) oxide (analytical purity): 173.50 USD for 10 grams So...a little math...and the prices gram for gram are: [ce] Nd_{2}O_3[/ce]: 1.58 USD/g [ce]Pb_{3}O_{4}[/ce] (mixed oxide): 8.282 USD/g [ce]PbO [/ce]: 4.35 USD/g [ce][Li(OH)H_{2}O][/ce]: 3.23 USD/g *These "per gram" values don't account for slightly different bulk pricings. **I tried to select reagents of similar purity grade. They are all similar except for the lead(IV)oxide which is super pure so I didn't include it in the "per gram" calculations as it would be confusing and not indicative of the rarity of lead.

I'll second Cypress' advice. You also might try wikipedia for a good activity series. It might also be listed under "electrochemical series". Be careful on the sign convention though if you're reading a chart. Most data uses postitive potential values for oxidizers. but beware! Some data from various parts of the world uses the reverse sign convention. These you have listed are all metals though, it shouldn't cause a problem.

Should we just take your word for it?

I don't think "b" accounts for changes in molecular size that stem from dipoles and induced dipoles in question. I think it uses the volume extrapolated from the regular covalent radii. I'm sure the equation accounting or all those various "psuedo-coulombic" interactions would become a nightmare because polarizability is different for every effective nuclear charge and therefore every element in every compound would have some different factor making the formula different for every substance. I imagine this equation could be expanded in many interesting and useless ways .

No, the abstract talks about failures to synthesize anything longer than a two or three amino acid oligopeptide. The abstract also uses the word peptide after having referred to oligomeric products. We can argue over the arbitrary line of oligomer, but I think peptide would imply a longer chain. Some people define insulin as a peptide (and not a protein) because it's so short, but I think we can agree it is a functional biomolecule. Also take notice though that the reactions were carried out at room temperature. I'm not sure what pressure, I imagine 1 atm since it wasn't specified. The reaction gave up to 80% yield under those conditions, is it not reasonable that the molecular weight of the poylmer would increase if the reaction was a under a much higher pressure? I'm speculating a bit here but those high pressure conditions and oxygen poor do exist at the bottoms of some of our oceans. There are thermophilic bacteria or archaea that live under these conditions currently. They're protein macro-structures are stabilized by relatively high numbers of cysteine residues and the conformationally stabilizing disulfide bonds that come with that. Which by the way is another way in which new [functional] information is created by natural selection. Evidently, only the peptides that formed with a lot of disulfide bonds [cysteine residues] were able to survive in those extreme conditions. So an ordinarily insignificant cysteine residue has become a functional bit of genetic information that could later become associated with a certain mRNA codon and favored for by natural selection because it contributes to the chemical stability of the proteomic information itself.

Oh, so "a" counts for all intermolecular interactions. Thanks

I don't know about that. Where is the motivation to drive employees into poverty? There is no company with that kind of market power (controlling the asking price for wages). If a conglomerate of companies ally to do such they are practicing illegal and unethical business. Of course companies want to pay less in wages, they exist to make a profit. However, that's really the beauty of the open market, a company that doesn't offer enough compensation to employees will not attract any talented, or any at all, workers. No one is forced to work for anyone. People who are in the position of not having a choice [needing the job desperately] are in that position because of their own devices. I worked a menial secretary job for three years straight as I was in school (I still am, I tutor now), I had to work that job because I didn't have a degree. I will have a degree very soon and won't be forced into less than attractive employment hopefully. Many minorities have already received reparations in the form of minority scholarships and affirmative action. I think the playing field here in the states is very level when compared to some other nations in the western world that are often considered more progressive. I might be making an overstatement (please correct if so) but we do have many legislated active defenses in the US against discrimination.

The Van der Waals equation of state for gases: [math]\left(p + \frac{n^2 a}{V^2}\right)\left(V-nb\right) = nRT[/math] where "a-prime" is the attractive force between gas particles. My question is, does "a-prime" already account for any paramagnetic interaction that may arise in gases with un-paried electrons like triplet [ce] O_2[/ce]? Or, does "a-prime" only factor in the Van der Waals (induced dipole-induced dipole) interactions present meaning that one would have to account for paramagnetic interactions separately? I realize one could neglect the paramagnetic interactions entirely for most purposes, obviously they shouldn't add up to much in the gas phase. This is sheer morbid curiosity. *I'm familiar with the standard derivation of the Van der Waals equation, but I've never had an opportunity to use it in real life because [math] PV=nRT [/math] has always been sufficient. I never work with the mega-pressures, micro-volumes, or small experimental margins where any of this really matters.

I agree. I'll add that I think there is a bit of a positive feedback loop between motivation and opportunity. People who are highly motivated tend to put themselves in situations where opportunity arises more often. For example, a highly motivated physics student is more likely to attend seminars and talks hosted by authorities in the field where he has a greater chance of meeting the right people or making connections that might enhance his/her chances of career success in physics. A post-doc who works in a lab under a highly cited scientist has a good chance of getting published early on in life.

To prove that the rod in motion is not relativistically contracting, one would have to report the observed length the rod at rest and in motion to many many decimal places with a confidence interval approaching 100% in order to draw any conclusions outside of the relatively large measurement error that is inevitable when dealing with margins this small. I hope you've got some serious lab technique. Am I right in saying that the rod's Lorentz factor should be vanishingly small anyway at velocities attainable in a lab for a macro object?

We need an underwater basket weaving forum for the eccentrics among us

To add to that: if one wrote down the set of quantum numbers for all the electrons of an atom in the ground state, each electron would have a unique set of quantum numbers describing its energy and location with respect to the others. The two electrons in the Helium atom would only differ by spin (assuming ground state).

I would hardly call it a modest consensus but that's a whole different argument. What am I willing to admit? I'll admit that not every mechanism has been observed that would be required for the start of life from prebiotic chemistry. However, I'll add that the reason I'm not bothered by this is that as more and more possible scenarios are discovered that can yield biomolecules or proto-biomolecules under conditions that would've likely been prevalent at the time in question; It becomes increasingly obvious how probabilistically unremarkable it is that life would arise out of such conditions. Sorry, didn't mean to get over zealous. Take your time.