mississippichem

I feel your pain Pangloss, secular conservatives have no real options in this country. I'm a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. I always get forced into voting for some religious rightwing nutbag or some big government lefty.

The American Chemical Society, of which I am also a proud member. My friends and I used to joke that it stood for American Certified Superiority .

Citicism of presidential leisure time, is usually paritsan at best: politics.usnews.com Your and my own opinions of Bush or Obama are irrelevant to the post I made above (though the mission accompliched banner was funny and very "Bushish"). I was highlighting and expanding on what Captain Panic said about the party in power not having as much time or manpower as the minority party to fight PR campaigns.

Couldn't the same be said for the left's criticism of Bush during his presidency? He actually had to govern a country as well. The democrats picked the arguments and the arguments were on their terms. I like your logic; I agree, I just think it works both ways.

No, I was saying the phosphoric acid slowly dissolves one's tooth enamel; not a good thing. I don't know about the de-calcification of bones. It makes chemical sense, but I don't see how the phosphoric acid would come into direct contact with bone. Then again, I don't know much about how the body metabolizes phosphoric acid.

The republicans aren't fiscally responsible by my definition. But I'm sad to say this is the closest I can get without wasting a vote on a libertarian and effectively voting democrat.

Yes. Soft drinks do have a high phosphorus content, but most of that is phosphoric acid. Phosphoric acid increases the solubility of hydroxylapatite crystals which give the tooth enamel its rigid hardness. This is a result of the common ion effect(see John Cuthber post #16): [ce]Ca_{10}(PO_{4})_{6}(OH)_{2}_{(s)} + 8H^{+}_{(aq)} -> 10Ca^{2+}_{(aq)} + 6HPO4^{2-}_{(aq)} + 2H2O_{(l)}[/ce] The other unfortunate fact is that in aluminum alloy canned soft drinks, phosphoric acid chemically leaches small amounts of Al(III) off the sides of the can. Al(III) salts have been linked, though somewhat controversially and not definitively, to Alzheimer's disease(see mississippichem post #17). But I must admit that I love Coca-Cola. Hey, at least I know what I'm getting into. EDIT: by myself for accuracy and general stupidity

I always thought that Sarah Palin totally negated the "lack of experience" argument that was often directed toward Obama. Its a shame, because I thought the "lack of experience" argument carried real weight, until Palin showed up to make Obama look like a veteran. I hope Palin doesn't run. She would split the Republicans right down the middle, as she is definitely a polarizing candidate. Many of the younger, "new school" conservatives [i guess I fit in this category?!] hate her, while the "family-values vote" can't get enough of her. P.S. - I'm not traditionally a republican, but I'm voting "right" tomorrow in the name of fiscal responsibility.

Your differential solutions are correct. So, you essentially derived the definition of the equilibrium constant. You seem to have a good handle on things, so I might be stating the obvious, but remember: [math] \frac{q}{p} = K = \frac{[A]^{a} ^{b}}{[C]^{c} [D]^{d}} [/math] ...So if all the equilibrium concentrations are known along with their stoichiometric coefficients, then yes. The bad news is that [math] K_{c} [/math] is determined experimentally. Looking at the situation purely kinetically: [math] \frac{d}{dt} = \frac{-d[A]}{dt} = k^n [/math] for [ce] A <=> B [/ce] as t approaches infinity or when [ce] Q=K [/ce] So if you want to try and get around the equilibrium experiment, you still have the individual reaction orders to deal with. In the math above, the reaction may have a molecularity of one with respect to B, but B may display psuedo-first order kinetics, or some other kinetic anomaly. You can though, determine the initial rates by evoking the steady state assumption: [math] \frac{d}{dt} = 0 [/math] where is the concentration of the reaction intermediate. This is assumed to remain constant once the reaction gets up and running. I can't seem to remember the derivation to arrive at initial rate though, sorry. I do remember that it gets quite hairy but involves no differential solution searching. Just remember, whatever you do, you are always limited by the law of mas action: [math](p-\xi)^{a}(q-\xi)^{b}=\frac{k'}{k} (p'+\xi)^{a'}(q'+\xi)^{b'}...[/math] But don't try and derive any kinetics from the law of mass action, as it is considered obsolete. It uses concentrations instead of the modern use of activities (concentration adapted for the dielectric constant of the solvent, along with ionic radii and other wonderful variables). *that Gibb's equation doesn't account for temperature dependence of entropy, and is only true at standard conditions **I typed this out fairly quickly, as I was pressed for time, so read carefully and check my work. You seem to know what you are doing.

Is this homework? -denaturing/renaturing a protein refers to a changing its conformation with respect to the "native conformation" of the protein (the one that exists en vivo). These conformational shifts can be induced by changing the salt concentration of the solution, adding/removing reagents or surfractants like SDS or urea, or by heat. Just think, which one (denaturation or renaturation) refers to changing the protein's conformation away from its native state? -Hint: denaturation sometimes involves the breaking of disulfide bonds where Cys residues are present. hope that helps steer you in the right direction

Is the oxidation on a organic substrate? Or is this an oxidation of a d-block coordination complex? If its an organic oxidation, I did nothing but for two semesters straight. If you have a reaction scheme it would help as well.

How so? I hate Glenn Beck just as much as the next reasonable man. But I just can't see Michael Moore as a serious investigative documentary maker. His movie "capitalism: a love story" pretty much stated that derivatives markets were designed so that the common person couldn't understand them. Then he showed what he called their "cryptic language", it was nothing more than a little calculus. Michael Moore takes real data or ideas and draws his conspiracy theories just like Glenn Beck. Michael Moore also tried to make the Cuban Health-care system out to be so wonderful; citing that the WHO ranked Cuba above the US. Well, they also ranked North Korea in the single digits last year. Bascule, you're too intelligent to allow your ideology to sway your assessment of the truth value of Michael Moore's statements. Michael Moore is a rampant ideologue who is willing to spread disinformation and half-truths in the name of the advancement of his agenda. How is that different from Glenn Beck? At least Glenn Beck admits to having made a fortune in his line of work.

That's fair enough. Please pick one of my above criticisms and address that one. If I were you, I would address the one about the relationship between energy, mass, and cooling; as swanont also commented on that part. Don't interpret my criticism as an attempt at ridicule. Ridicule would be attacking your character instead of your hypothesis. My criticisms stem from a few inconsistencies that just "jumped out" at me as I was looking over your original post. For your hypothesis to be accepted, it must be concistent with existing theories or provide a sufficient body of evidence/predictions to alter or overturn currently accepted theories. No need to be defensive, I don't know you personally, and any criticism I have is only "in the spirit of the game" so to speak, of the science forum. I really just enjoy debate and discussion for the sake of debate and discussion; there is no competition here.

I don't see why the philosphical implications of evolution have any effect on its truth value at all. The mecahnics of evolution are well documented and have roots all the way back to "Mendel's Peas" and old theories of inheritence. As a "hard-nosed" scientist, surley you can cite some specific example of how evolution has "mucked" up the facts? If a scientific theory makes testable predictions, or yields a model that represents reality reasonably well, the "religious-gloss" should be of no matter unless it causes the drawing of illogical conclusions. This is actally just shy of the opposite of animism. The Shinto religion would be a better example of animism if I remember correctly.

Then doesn't that make eveything you are saying subjective and completley transcendental? If you can't quantify it, you have no way of presenting an even slightly compelling case. concepts and experiments that are not quantified cannot be reproduced in a consistent or reliable way. How much does a soul weigh? How much volume does it occupy? What is the density of a soul? If you can't answer these questions or any realated questions; do you really have a case for the existence of souls?

Not a fan of conservation of mass? If bodies gained energy as they cooled, then why do solid substances require energy input i.e. heating, to break lattice interactions and melt? How do you reconcile this with the concept of "conservation of baryon number" that is well established? No, work is a way we've chosen to quantify force expressed over a certain change in position: [math]W_C = \int_{C} \bold{F} \cdot \mathrm{d}\bold{s}[/math] Yeah, I think many of the odd numbered isotopes would be heart broken. poor U-235; guy just can't catch a break.

When is the last time someone was burned at the stake or beheaded in the western world for having the wrong beliefs? Freedom of consciousness was not high on the priority list of the Catholic Church or the monarchy during the middle ages. I would probably be beheaded for this post had they used the internet. Why can't our concept of a moral absolute [large gray area, but I think most would agree on many, like the wrong of theft, murder] be of biological origin? Wouldn't that be a simpler explanation requiring less assumptions/speculation/complexity?

The Nobel Prize for chemistry in 2010 went to Richard Heck, Ei-ichi Negishi and Akira Suzuki for their work with organopalladium catalyzed cross couplings. Examples include: Suzuki Reaction: Heck Reaction: where the palladium catalyst is often an organopalladium(0) species such as tetrakis(triphenylphosphino)palladium(0). I have a feeling this chemistry will change future organic classes significantly. Now there is finally a way, though not entirely unrestricted, to just piece together linear alkyl and alkenyl fragments like toy bricks. There have been reactions like this reported before, see the dreaded "Wurtz-type couplings" but they almost always resulted in a menagerie of side products that were the result of pure statistical recombination; and appreciable yield could only be reached in totally symmetrical reactions. I cited one of Heck's works in a beast of a paper that I worked on for school over the course of the last year [on noble metal photo-dynamic drugs]; and I have noticed, while "journal prospecting" in the library that the work of Suzuki and Heck has started a huge trend in neutral-metal/[ce]\pi[/ce] ligand catalyzed asymmetric couplings. I think this work is of such utility organic chemistry textbooks, even on the undergraduate level, will be forced to cover the material as it will become common lab practice. *reaction scheme's courtesy of Wikipedia, my Chem-draw hand felt lazy. Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?

Yes, that's the idea of a buffer. The buffer supplies a excess of some "common ion" to continually participate in a associative/dissociative equilibrium with all the [ce]H^+[/ce] and [ce] OH^- [/ce] floating around in solution that would otherwise alter the pH drastically. I think you've got the idea reasonably well. Buffers used to confuse me a few years back.

-Plot the [math] [i_2 ] [/math] versus time. If this gives a linear plot, the reaction is zero order with respect to iodine. -Plot [math] ln[i_2 ] [/math] vs time...if linear, the reaction is first order with respect to iodine. -Plot [math] \frac{1}{[i_2 ]}[/math] vs.time...If linear, 2nd order reaction If you have a rate constant and an observed rate for the reaction, you can just solve for the individual reactant orders algebraically with logarithms.

I think the "man on the street" is often limited by vocabulary but maybe not by wit. A random bystander might not have the slightest idea what a derivative is, but the general concept is easily explained. If one explained it as the "steepness" of a curve at any given point on the curve, it might be easily understood. Some concepts though, no matter how intricate or simple to the expert, might be out of reach for the common man that frankly doesn't care. I think its a question of will to understand.

I'm a chemistry major, but my math requirements make me almost a math minor. I have to take Calculus I, II, III, and IV along with differential equations. I have friends who are physics majors and they have the same math requirements plus Linear Algebra, differential geometry, and one more class I can't seem to recall. So if you major in chemistry or physics, I would guess that a math minor wouldn't be that far away. I might go ahead and tag on Linear Algebra myself because I love it...why not!?

Helium, having a smaller molecular/atomic radius than [ce] H_2 [/ce], also makes it valuable for detecting micro-leaks. If a hole exists, helium is small enough to fit through...Thought I would throw that in.

Did you read the article!? the article establishes causation to some degree. Even if it didn't, can you not concede that there is a negative correlation between capital gains tax and market value of an equity? You can't dismiss the math in the article just because you don't like its implications. Economics and finance are studies of correlation anyway, causation is extremely hard to pull out of highly complex systems. If you want to use that argument, I'll answer by saying all your strawman GDP arguments also do not imply causation, no matter how pretty the graph. Give me something tougher to defend against than a pun. I enjoy the debate more than the end result, seeing as how neither of us are likely to change our opinions as a result of our innate confirmation bias.

Yes, Cypress gives good advice. Also in your answer, you might discuss the correlation between boiling point/vapor pressure and molecular weight.