mississippichem

It's alright dapifo. Mistakes happen.

Moved to speculations. It is a bit dishonest to pose a question only to later use it as an intro for your own personal speculation. Please keep original research confined to the speculations forum.

In general yes. Chemiluminescence, as distinguished from photolyminescence occurs when a product or intermediate decays back down to the ground state. Two excited state species or one ground state and one excited state species can also form an exciplex or excimer which can also give a chemiluminescent phenomenon. There are even more rare third order processes as well. I'm not familiar with the specific luminescence mechanism behind this reaction.

No, IIRC x-ray reflection can be used to characterize the surface morphology features of certain materials. Not something I know much about but I know the technique exists.

If Obama were to hypothetically be a member of a UK political party do you think he would be in with the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats? I imagine he is not left enough to be in the Labour Party.

Or the fact that your combat strategy encompassed wearing brightly colored coats and standing in a single file line? In all fairness we did some of that nonsense as well, but at least we had the good sense to do things like harass supply lines and British camps guerrillia style. But hey, I'm willing to call truce because I think we can both agree that if it wasn't for the grumpy Brits and annoying Yanks the "cheese eating surrender monkeys" would have gotten their asses handed to them permanently in WWII.

The French were on the American colonies' side during the American Revolution. John was rebutting my joke that we kicked their [England's] asses in the American revolution. It is true. The French were a huge ally to us in that war though I think they really just hated the Brits more than they liked us.

We taught them how to win a war back in the late 1700's. Sorry John Cuthber, couldn't resist. I like you even though you're a red-coat.

Does optical emission spectroscopy refer to AES "atomic emission spectroscopy". I've been told that AES can't really compete with AAS in terms of sensitivity because at any given time the sample will have a much smaller population in the first excited state than in the ground state. In other words it is easier to measure the decrease in intensity of the incident light (AAS) than it is to measure the weak signal that results from the emission in AES. I have no experience with AES though so you may know something I don't. I don't know if you still need element specific cathode lamps for AES like you do for AAS but I would guess that you would. TheBlackFedora: I agree with all the advice John Cuthber gave you in his first post. I think that AAS through ICP methods might be a winner but keep in mind that cost will be high. Your friend who suggested an NMR gave poor advice. As mentioned earlier the UV-vis analysis would take days as you'll have to complex each one of these metals to get a species that has any measurable absorption. Also, IIRC UV-vis can't really hold a candle to AAS, AES, or AFS (atomic fluorescence spectroscopy) in terms of sensitivity and lower detection limit. How low of concentrations are you looking to detect? Are we talking a few ppm or several hundred ppm?

We use Ostwald viscometers in my lab which work well for high viscosity fluids that are close to Newtonian. Basically you immerse a bent capillary tube [viscometer] into a large water bath (to control temperature), pull up some liquid with a pippette bulb and measure how long it takes to fall a certain distance. Downsides: -each viscometer has it's own measurement constant. If you don't know it then they are useless. -high precision is not really achievable because of human error in the timing. -no good for low viscosity fluids (I measure very viscous monomer and prepolymer mixtures) If your fluid deviates from "Newtonion-ness" too much you'll probably need a rheometer.

Homeopaths make cheap bar dates. "I'll have a Guiness and the lady will have one drop of whiskey in 10 liters of water." And that's only if she's not a big drinker. The women who are alcoholics require a serial dilution to get a drink mixed.

Care to elaborate? It is also our natural instinct to go to the next town, kill the men, enslave the children and impregnate the women. I don't really see any rigor in that type of argument.

Sorry that this post adds no value to the thread. But I thought you should be commended publicly. Best post of the month. Spot on. Nailed it. Amen +1

Establish how that lead to the results reported from Gallup in the OP. How did that phenomena lead to the allegedly invalid result? Be specific please. EDIT: punctuation

I know. I was merely discussing further. Not trying to rob you of credintials. You may very well know better than I. I don't know you personally.

I see it differently (though I admit it is subjective). To be human is to suffer but has the rejection of irrational beliefs and non-scientific dogma throught the years not minimized our suffering? I feel that I am very sensitive to life. I think only science can enhance human life in the long run. The only sadness I have about my humanity and place in the universe is that I can't live forever...to see things like homo sapiens spreading their influence throughout the solar system or maybe even the galaxy. I would love to be around to see our star as a red giant, or to see the collision of the Milky Way with Andromeda! Humans can have a wonderful future if we choose to embrace it. Maybe we are the most intelligent beings in the observable universe in which case we are gods! Lighten up for your own sake. You are the product of millions of years of biological evolution and billions of years of cosmic evolution. You are a remarkable accident, a complexity arisen from simple principles. That makes you special and wonderous. Embrace it!

IMO they need to be freed from intellectual bondage so that they can accept the fact that the Earth and this life are all we've got. If everyone realized that I think we would be more likely to advance further in science and technology...enhancing their quality of life. Life is meaningless but is there not extreme beauty and majesty in the organized chaos we call the universe?

I agree There are even a few examplea of compunds vibrational energy levels making a non-negligible contribution to its observed "color". The particle in a box method of predicting color only works for compounds where the pi antibonding orbital is the most populated excited state and things like refractivity and specular reflection aren't significant. For example linear conjugated polyenes. For metallic complexes d-orbitals and high symmetry force us to switch over to ligand field theory which gets messy. Bring in high paramagnetism ans you'll have serious spin considerations to deal with.

I completely understand your frustration with American culture. It frustrates me to no end whenever I present evidence of the fallaciousness of religious thought and people respond with "God's ways are higher than ours" or "there are questions science can't answer too". It makes my blood boil because I work hard everyday to understand the world in an objective and systematic way (actively removing my own internal biases) at my job doing chemistry, while these nutcases (including some of my own friends and family) just read a book about a tribal deity and his demigod son written by middle eastern desert goat herders from several thousand years ago...and I'M the crazy one!!?? \me jumps off cliff I disagree with those in this thread who think it is simply a matter of science not evangelizing enough. Religion doesn't fight fair. Here in the southeastern US, evolution teaching biology teachers are liberal conspirators, stem cell researchers are over educated baby killers. I was once told by a door to door Baptist pamphlet giver that knowledge of science had hardened my heart against Jesus and because of that I believed in evolution. BTW, this after I completely pwned him [nicely] in an evolution/creation discussion. He used the fact that I beat him in the debate to prove that he won the debate because "Satan likes to take hold in intelligent young men such as yourself". Religion teaches people to be immune to reason and to only buy fear mongering and arguments that are pathos heavy [logos slim]. That's why it has gotten beyond control in the US. Christianity is grotesqely tied in with right wing politics and as a result people often can't tell where Christianity ends and Republicanism begins. There is seriously a movement in my state to institute Christian prayer in schools!!!! That is some third world shit. Give iNow a break guys. He has just been exasperated beyond his wits end with the battle against the irrational hordes. Remember that atheist are one of the most hated people groups in the US. It can be tough to be an atheist if you live down here in Colonel Sanders land I know.

Yes wikipedia is cool.

It's alright. Welcome to the internet. This is only a small side jousting match. If it's alright with you we can just call it a misunderstanding brought on by bad syntax (on both sides) and press on. I hope you don't think I was picking on you because that was NOT my intent. Agree to disagree on this one point of contention?

By the power vested in me by Uncle Sam: Yes.

That is another strawman. Show where I claimed to know the mechanism behind abiogenesis. I'm quite confused as to what you are talking about. No sarcasm, this is sincere.

That is a stawman. Science requires no faith. That precedent has been established in this very thread and IIRC even acknowledged by at least one non-atheist. That is a stawman. Science requires no faith. That precedent has been established in this very thread and IIRC even acknowledged by at least one non-atheist.

I was merely responding to your equivocation of naturalistic explanations of our origins to religious ones. If you want to continue this I would like to but I fear we are straying from the topic (which is not an origin of life thread) PM me and we can discuss or start a thread and I'll jump in. Edit: Looks like Phi for All explained this better than I in the post below as I was typing. I second his question to you.