mississippichem

The drug companies are "filthy rich" because they offer a product that is highly valued by the market and society as a whole. Millions upon millions of dollars are devoted to developing new and innovative drugs. It takes thousands of sales just to pay off the initial investment from the research. I've done pharmaceutical research, trust me, we go through money like a hot knife goes through butter. As far as the government running the drug companies; nothing could contribute to the stagnation of medical research more. Economic incentives are the strongest incentives we know of. Nothing stirs research more than the prospect of one standing to make millions in the process, which I believe they deserve. If government were to run these operations, there would be no incentive to develop products competitively which ultimately leads to a lower quality product for the consumer. Drug companies are an easy target for those that hate monetary success because, yes, they do make large profits in the long run. But remeber the next time you use a nasal decongestant that this would not be available were it not for the incentivized innovation of the free market system.

I'm trying to imply, with a hint of sarcasm and comedic grace, that your claim doesn't really make any sense. I'm not trying to stamp out your idea because it "doen't follow the rules of science" (even though it doesn't). I'm trying to politely explain that you are drawing arbitrary lines on a piece of paper and trying to make some grandiose connection to a historical religious text that itself does not stand up to scientific, philisophical or logical scrutiny. Try making small managable speculations that are not so farfetched. If those speculations are even close to something that agrees with accepted mathematical and physical precedent, then people will be more willing to entertain your ideas. I worked in a research lab for a while where we did research on potential ruthenium based anti-cancer drugs. Some of our drugs showed real promise; but when we submitted the paper, we didn't make a broad, untestable, or radical claim. We just claimed that our compound had showed efficacy in slowing the growth of liver tumors in rats. Every claim we made was quantified, thoroughly explained, and referenced to prior research that had been peer reviewed by colleagues equal to and superior to ouselves. This is the proper way ideas are advanced, slow and one tedious step at a time.

So I read the genesis passage, this is the drawing I came up with:

I don't see where you make the jump from heaven and earth being created to drawing a diagonal line. To me it could just as easily be a point, or a plane, or a square, hypercube, pentagon, dodecahedron...whatever. Explain how each element of your drawing is a necessary extrapolation from the text. When I say necessary, I mean prove how that shape must be extrapolated from the text. Otherwise your claim is assumed to be entirely arbitrary and therefore un-meaningful. If it is proved that your drawing is a reasonable conclusion drawn from the Bible, what is it's significance. I can't really see what the point is.

Yeah, come on guys, everyone knows the aliens from Nibiru built the pyramids. There's no way the ancient egyptians could've understood trigonometry. No seriously, I like the claim that there is a planet in our solar system called "Nibiru???" that in 2012 will pass by the Earth causing an asteroid to hit, or causing a magnetic pole shift. Oh wait, I thought that was going to be caused by our sun entering the galactic plane, or was it all the planets are going to align? All this to say: Does anyone notice how 2012 mongers will defend the idea that the world is coming to an end in 2 years with whatever "evidence" they can find. They don't know how it could happen, but they are so sure it will happen. Inverse Scientific Method

Thankyou, that answers my first question. I wonder if any electron excitation effects (fluorescence, compton, rayleigh) happen from absorption in the gamma region. Im not familiar with what happens from absorption of such high magnitude. Is gamma radiation so ionizing that these phenomena don't occur as they do with absorption of UV, vis, Infared?

I'm a chemist with an interest in Mossbauer spectroscopy. I was wondering if any of you physics guys can help me understand the origin of the Mossbauer effect. I've had difficulty finding good resources on this topic. I understand it involves atoms heavier than K absorbing gamma photons which in turn causes them to emit a whole number of phonons... I don't understand: What makes some Mossbauer events happen without recoil energy loss? Is there a nuclear spin requirement for a nuclei to be Mossbauer active as is the case with NMR active nuclei? Why are no nuclei lighter than potassium Mossbauer active? This isn't homework, just curious.

where are those crazy guys who think they've figured out the universe when you need them? You know; those people who make posts in the speculations forum with titles like: My theory of quantum [insert word here]

This reaction is not enatioselective unless a chiral borane reagent is used. It depends on what borane reagent is used. In the case of BH3 the reaction will result in a racemate or an achiral product depending on the substrate. In the case of a chiral borane reagent, addition of the hydride cannot occur on the side that is sufficiently sterically blocked.

Robert good call, should've thought of that one

Using HF will only leave you with iron fluoride gunk, which is worse. HF is some really nasty stuff, I would feel guilty reccomending its use to anyone unless it was absolutley neccessary for a synthesis. Try acetone, if that doesn't work, dilute sulfuric acid or dichloromethane might.

I identify with liberitarianism. I would never call myself a member of the American Liberitarian Party though. Pure liberitarians are too idealistic. In a perfect world liberitarianism would be the best thing ever, but we live in an imperfect world with imperfect people. Some regulation is needed. As far as this being outside the mainstream, I believe it would be safe to assume many of those who post on SFN hold ideals a little further to the left [politically] than my own. But thats okay, being a minority is the spice of life!

Naturopathy is also a good one: "natural remedies are good medicine because they are not nasty synthetic chemicals." Based on the super-assumption that substances made in nature are somehow intrinsically better than substances made in the lab. I'd like to challenge nature to an analytical purity contest. Hundred bucks says I can make anything in the lab more "pure" than it would be in nature. Look at a bottle of ACS reagent grade glucose, guaranteed to 99.999%, the 0.0001% is water!

I believe HF reacts quite vigorously with most substances except for perfluoroalkanes/polymers. HCl reacts with iron to give iron chloride and H2 gas, but this reaction is very slow. The iron is passivated by a thin layer of mixed iron oxides, meaning HCl has a tough time having good collisions with iron atoms. I once put an iron nail in a glass of about 40% HCl, it took at least a few days to observe any visible change.

Try running the synthesis at different concentrations of substrate and oxidant. Run the synthesis once at regular concentration, then double the concentration of one of the reactants. Use the old handy rate equation to calculate the rate constant and determine the kinetic order of each reactant as well as the overall order of the reaction. Are you familiar with these calculations?

It's not so bad in under 30% concentration (aqueous). Keep away from anything remotely oxidizing of course.

Yes they would. Cheaper too, LDA can put a dent in the research budget, and its a bitch to handle. I really love Hydrazine reductions of carbonyls that proceed through the hydrazone intermediates, they are beautiful, and N2 is probably one of your easier groups to remove.

The Feynman ratchet seems to come so close...yet it falls so far. Thermodynamics: the only science more dismal than economics.

What is everyone's favorite psuedoscientific/quack/scam claim? My favorite would have to be the work of "Dr." Masaru Emoto. Claims that prayer and music imparts unique structures to the old classic...water clusters. This one just cracks me up. He takes pictures of snowflakes and writes a book about his proof of the power of prayer to influence our biochemistry. http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/nov1/cwater.htm Lets try and find the craziest psuedoscience we can. It sure beats the hell out of watching TV sitcoms.

Yeah that's what I figured. Check this out (p.86). This chemistry is in the same ball park stereo-wise (not a reduction) but with a thioester and a boron enolate; really cool chemistry. You're right, even in this case bulkier groups on the substrate encourage enatioselectivity.

Sodium (0) is strongly reducing. Think of two sodium atoms each donating one electron to molecule of O2. You could also think of it as the sodium salt of the conjugate base of H202 (hydrogen peroxide). I must correct my last post, Na2O does exist. But the major product of burning sodium metal in air is the peroxide not the oxide, sorry. Sodium peroxide owes it's yellow tint to the presence of a small amount of Sodium oxide impurity. 1. Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, A. (1984), Chemistry of the Elements, Oxford: Pergamon, p. 98 2. Housecroft, Catherine E.; Sharpe, Alan G. (2008), Inorganic Chemistry, 3rd Edition, Pearson: Prentice Hall, p.293

Thanks for your answers. What if the reaction where to happen closing to a larger ring, perhaps to a seven or nine membered ring (eight membered rings are a nightmare for some reason). This would involve a less volatile substrate, would this still lead to those pesky, thermodynamic elimination products? what if pi-bonds (not alkynyl; wouldn't allow from ring closing due to intense angle strain) were introduced to limit C-C bond rotation preventing the intramolecular reaction? These are just thoughts. I guess I just subconciously want to see this reaction work. It would be almost too good to be true wouldn't it?

I think this reaction would only occour to the extent that MgO was soluble (which it is not very). Also, the oxide of sodium is a peroxide (Na2O2). A simple sodium oxide doesn't exist that I'm aware of.

NaOH is produced industrially by the chloralkali process, that is, elctrolysis of aqueous sodium chloride. Chlorine gas is also produced at the anode, along with H2 at the cathode. The Hydrolysis of sodium peroxide or sodium metal is far too exothermic and sponataneous for industrial scale production.

Anyone know if reactions of this type are possible? I know organo-maganesium compounds often form nasty conglomerates. If anything prevents this reaction from working, it probably has to do with the complex Shlenck equillibrium.