hypervalent_iodine

! Moderator Note One thread per topic. Closed.

Is this a homework question?

! Moderator Note Alright, this is beyond silly now. Closed, pending staff review.

It's a trap!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-effort-to-end-fiscal-crisis-collapses-leaving-senate-to-forge-last-minute-solution/2013/10/16/1e8bb150-364d-11e3-be86-6aeaa439845b_story.html?hpid=z1 Finally. Hopefully this is a lesson well-learned by the Tea Party faction of the Republicans.

You need to have another look at the first one. I assume you were attempting to show a [4+2] pericyclic reaction, but your reagents aren't quite right for what you've shown and if you follow your arrows, you'll see you're missing some things. Try doing some retrosynthetic analysis and then work forwards. If you have Clayden, it has a very nice chapter on how to go about doing retrosynthetic analyses. At a quick glance, the first radical sequence you have going from cyclopentane to cyclopentene looks fine. I would possibly question whether or not you would get the second addition/elimination happening to give you cyclopentadiene, but I am inexperienced in these types of radical reactions so this may not be an issue. It's not really clear what the question is here also; do you need to start from cyclopentane? The DA reaction in this one looks fine, except I would make your arrows flow in the other direction to represent the electron rich/deficient ends of the molecule. It is possible that you get the other product in (1), but you probably wouldn't get very much of it since, as you noted, it is both less stable and the slower of the two to form. I would still note it in your answer, but maybe add a small paragraph explaining why you don't think you would get it in appreciable quantities.

You're more than welcome to post the questions. Members won't answer them directly, but we can help point you in the right direction and check your working.

! Moderator Note Hi egidio, We don't allow members, especially new ones, to post links to commercial sites. Please keep this in mind when posting in future.

I think you need to elaborate on this as it doesn't make very much sense as written. What are you defining as vicious intent and how would you quantify it? What do you mean by, 'least significant?'

! Moderator Note Hi Chelsea, Firstly, welcome to SFN. A few housekeeping rules that you need to be aware of: - Please make sure that your thread titles give a description of the topic you wish to discuss. I have edited the title of this thread to make it clearer to members what your thread is about by including the title of your essay. - Similarly, you need to be a little more aware of where you are placing your threads. The 'Suggestions, Comments and Support,' forum is probably not the place for a thread about micro chipping. - Mixing small and large print with different font types and colours in a single post can make it painful to read. In future, try and stick a consistent formatting style. - I would recommend against using your class mate's full names on a public forum. The risk is possibly small, but they might not like it so much.

Assuming you knew that I(VI) probably doesn't exist, you could make the distinction fairly easily. However, that requires a degree of prerequisite chemical instinct I'm assuming the OP doesn't have, so you are correct in that sense.

That sounds like a wise decision.

For your own safety and for the safety of others, you should not be attempting synthetic chemistry if you have no idea what you're doing.

The fact that they are acidic groups and the fact that your reaction is with a strong base should tell you why that it is important to know how many of them there are. Do you know the general reaction for a strong base plus acid? Also, just as a matter of personal preference (and because it would probably be helpful for you), I would avoid using molecular formula in your equation for citric acid. Draw the structure of citric acid out and indicate which parts of the structure the NaOH would be reacting with.

As far as I'm aware, we don't have a post limit for being able to neg rep someone. What browser are you using and have you tried using others?

! Moderator Note Deidre and turionx2, I appreciate that arrogance is the topic of this thread, but you both need to stop accusing or defending accusations of insulting behavior. There is no need to make this personal. I have removed all associated comments.

Alright, well you can calculate it by looking at the net charge of the molecular and treating it algebraically and by knowing a few rules of thumb. The charge of the whole molecule is equal to the sum of the charge of its components and those charges correspond will to the oxidation numbers of each atom. The oxidation number for a sodium ion is +1 as it is a Group I element. Oxygen is always -2, except in peroxides (not what we're dealing with here), and you say you already know the charge of the Ni atom is +4. The net charge of the molecule is 0, so to calculate the charge of the iodide: 0 = 1 + 4 + x + (6 x -2) 0 = 5 + x - 12 x = 7 The oxidation number of the iodine is therefore +7. If you didn't know the oxidation state of the Ni, which is often the case in these questions, you could have looked up the net charge of the periodate (which is -5) and used that value to work out the charge of the iodine, ignoring the Na Ni component, and then worked out the charge on the Ni.

! Moderator Note What part of, 'Can we keep the argument over the cause of the sub-prime crisis to another thread.' are people not getting? Stop derailing this thread. All related posts have been deleted.

! Moderator Note If everyone could please cut out the vague insults, it would be much appreciated.

Where exactly are you struggling with this question? We don't simply give out homework answers here, so you will have to show us where you are needing the help in your understanding.

What on Earth does this have to do with anything? I just want to clarify your position. You were pissed at the gender imbalance towards females at the undergraduate level you perceived in the labs, but the fact that the professor level was male dominated was not a concern to you? I have to ask why this pissed you off in the first place? I mean, you seem to indicate that you worked in the lab, so clearly you were not discriminated against in that sense.

I am both female and a chemist, so be surprised. Also: http://www4.lu.se/o.o.i.s/31332 Though I somewhat suspect that the value for chemical and biological scientists is contributed to more so by biology than by chemistry. Further in response to one of CharonY's posts, I found this article. http://www.rsc.org/images/womensretention_tcm18-139215.pdf I found it somewhat interesting because it reports (among other things) that the increasing numbers of females going into chemistry PhD's is not enough to increase the number of females at all levels. It states that, It also mentions that the overall experience for men completing chemistry PhD's tends to be more positive overall because their expectations are lower from the outset, which is an interesting point and not something I had really thought of myself. However, the overarching thing (at least for chemistry) seems to be that females are more likely to be put off because of the nature of academic research, possibly because of the work-life balance issues mentioned above. It's true that in theory, scientists have more liberty in their positions to create a greater work-life balance, but in practice I would have to question how many actually utilise that.

Well, if you have any trouble during it with how to answer the questions, I think we can manage that. However, we won't answer them for you.

The direct hydrolysis would require an acidic environment and I suspect that such an environment is not very good for the liver. The use of enzymes also offers a feedback mechanism and a greater degree of control over when the glucose is released.

Are you kidding me? You actually think that cutting 87% of discretionary spending is okay? The very next image in the link you got your chart from: Gutting spending on all of the above isn't a catastrophe to you? You do realise that the programs that this money funds are critical for economic growth, right? I suppose cutting of your nose to spite your face the norm in politics now. Also, it's interesting that you linked the Heritage Foundation. It's probably already been mentioned here, but the ACA is based off and is largely identical to something that they themselves developed and Romney introduced when he was governor of MA.