hypervalent_iodine

Chiral solvents have been shown to be useful when trying to promote the formation of one enantiomer over another during a reaction, but I have not seen them used in the way you describe. The main draw back is that they are expensive and solvents are required in large volumes. Separation by crystallization is interesting and admittedly not something I know terribly much about. Practically speaking, separation of chiral compounds in organic chemistry is usually achieved in other ways, such as kinetic resolution. One problem I see with your device is with solvent. Many organic compounds will not dissolve in water and would typically be recrystallized from any number of volatile, flammable and/or toxic organic solvents. At the same time, some organic compounds have high melting points - certainly higher than the boiling point of the solvent(s) they're in. It also strikes me that this would be limited in its scope in an organic lab, though it's possible that it would find use in other areas.

Since this is a competition that you are entering and not the members of SFN, this would be a little unfair and against SFN policy.

Others have mentioned here the 14th amendment, specifically section 4, which states that, "Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void." The claim, from what I can tell, is that Obama has emergency powers to override Congress under the above amendment, though he himself has rejected this idea and the Washington legal counsel say that he does not have this power in the first place. From what I have read, it seems that even assuming he does (and it appears to me that this is true), executing the debt-ceiling laws under the Constitution would break other laws set by Congress and therefore be unconstitutional in and of itself. However, if Republicans won't give and no compromise is made, essentially anything that Obama does would be unconstitutional in some way, so he would have to pick the least bad option (invoke the 14th amendment and raise the debt ceiling) and simply risk impeachment. This article elaborates on it in more detail.

Conventions in nomenclature mean that certain functional groups take priority over others. We use that system to keep things consistent. If you have a molecule with two or more functional groups, such as a carboxylic acid and an amine, the group with the highest priority (the carboxylic acid in this case) becomes the parent functional group and is the one that ends up as the suffix. This is a good list of priorities, for future reference: http://www.laney.edu/wp/abraham-reyes/files/2011/09/Priority-of-functional-groups.pdf

It might be more helpful for you if you could possibly post the questions that you have now, rather than waiting for someone to respond.

I would be inclined to go with the latter. From what I've noticed of other forums, science based or otherwise, and even threads on social media sites, any sort of substantive debate / bickering session seems to be dominated by males. I can't think of a logical reason for why this is, it just seems to be the trend based on my compilation of anecdotes (and if true, it's an interesting one at that). Pregnancy is definitely a large part of it, if not the largest. That paper was a good read, also; China is such an intriguing landscape.

! Moderator Note Since TrappedLight is the same person as Aethelwulf and since Aethelwulf already has a thread on this, I'm closing this topic.

TrappedLight has been banned as a sock puppet of the loveable scamp, Aethelwulf.

How do you know I'm not a female hippo? There's no box for hippo. But seriously. My own personal experience is a bit left of the norm, since the school I was associated with had fairly equal representation of the genders. In fact, the head of school was and is a female, the PhD coordinator and the person running the undergrad labs were also both female and my lab was predominantly female. Going outside of the school, the story is a little different. At the place I work now, the two people who manage the labs are female (though the director of the institute I work at is male) and many of the people I work with are also female (the split is approximately 50:50). I think this is a very isolated situation, though. Going to conferences makes it very easy to see that at least at the professor level, males tend to be the majority.

The question is worded a little weirdly or you haven't written it down properly. It's asking you two different things under two sets of conditions. 1. 1 dm3 (or 1 L) of gas at STP has a mass of 2.86 g, find its relative molecular mass. 2. Calculate the density of that gas at 17oC and 207kPa Point being, in scenario 1, the pressure and temperature is standard (1 atm and 298 K). You can use PV = nRT or you could simply recall the fact that 1 mole of gas at STP occupies 22.4 L.

! Moderator Note TrappedLight, Normally I would take this opportunity to point out that the rules of Speculations demand that you provide evidence to back up your assertions before I go ahead and close it. However, Bignose has given you ample opportunity to do this and since you have chosen to go down the route of insults over answers, I am just going to go ahead and close it. You are not permitted to reopen this topic in Speculations and you are absolutely not allowed to introduce it in the mainstream forums.

! Moderator Note I have split off all of the numerology and generally nothing-to-do-with-the-OP posts into the trash. Please try and keep this thread on topic. Also, I wonderaboutthings, let's try and avoid using Uncyclopedia as a reference, shall we?* *Question is rhetorical. Don't reply to this in the thread.

! Moderator Note Back on topic, please

Okay, well as an example, 22 + 3 = (2 x 2) + 3 = 4 + 3 = 7 As others have stated above, your particular example uses a number that is very large; ~ 1034 = 10000000000000000000000000*. That is a very big number. Adding ~ 4 to that number changes the value so slightly (4.0 x 10-32 % or 0.000000000000000000000000000000004 %*) , that it would be considered negligible and not worthwhile considering in any practical sense. I hope that has clarified it for you and in future, please avoid responding to mod notes in the thread. If you don't like it, please report it. *Exact number of 0's may be off as I didn't proof-read it, but you get the idea.

! Moderator Note The question you posed in your OP was answered within the first post. The length of this thread is primarily due to your confusing replies. As a matter of etiquette, the jumbled formatting and overuse of caps and large, bold type is unwarranted and it would be appreciated if it could stop. The people replying to you can read perfectly well without it. Now, it seems to me that your question has been answered and all you seem to be doing is trying to drag in totally unrelated speculation. Kindly stop it. The question was about adding numbers together. If you are truly still troubled by this, then please explain what about it you are finding difficult so that members may further assist you. Otherwise this thread is done.

! Moderator Note Closed, pending staff review

! Moderator Note Kramer, Staff have decided to alter the title of this thread. Please try and keep the titles of your threads to the point and factual; starting them with 'HUGE CONTROVESY,' etc., is really not needed (nor is it accurate).

And that's why it's in speculations. Having it here is not meant to detract from your work, it's simply that it is not a part of mainstream science.

! Moderator Note We don't usually like threads that contain nothing more than a YouTube video because they don't open discussion. I am closing this thread on that basis. If you had a point or something you'd like members to respond to, please reopen the thread with the video in the OP rather than in the title and please ensure you include a summary of what you wish to discuss.

When I was in my senior years of high school, the school system in my state had just been changed to pull the focus away from exams in the sciences. Instead they implemented some new types of assessments: Extended Experimental Investigations (EEI’s) and Extended Research Investigations (ERI’s). There were set up so that students were given a research question, but designing the experimental set up (where applicable) and generally deciding how to answer the question was left up to the student. Getting a pass in these was fairly straight forward and you were given some level of direction from teachers, but in order to get an A you were really required to apply yourself and be creative in your approaches. I think these worked excellently for students who, like me, wanted to be challenged and IMO, they really encouraged you to go out and learn about the topic (I also had the benefit of some incredible biology and chemistry teachers). Compared to the older system, I found it to be infinitely more engaging and conducive to student learning. Certainly, the school system here is broken in many other ways, but this is one thing I think they got right.

This is a good response to that graphic and why it's silly: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html And:

You probably don't need this now, but as far as I can tell, you don't have enough information to determine molecular formula from this without knowing information about the actual reaction, only empirical. You would need something related to the compounds molecular mass to figure out the molecular formula from the empirical one.

And that's neither leucine nor phenylalanine's IUPAC name.

The sad fact is that many people do agree with him and it's largely the fault of the Murdoch dominated media and this weird and misinformed obsession with budget deficit. I read the costings that the LNP released today* myself and truly it is a terrifying thing to have to process given that they are likely to win this Saturday. His personal distrust of science is very apparent in it and it's disconcerting to know that a man who believes global warming to be rubbish has such influence over scientific progress in Australia. This is how it reads in the document by the PBO (numbers are in $mil and columns from left to right represent the financial year starting from 2013/2014 and going to 2016/2017 with the last column being the total over the 4 years in $mil): Having politicians decide on research themes that dictate funding is certainly dangerous and severely limiting to discovery and progress. There have been a few articles on this featured on Crikey and ABC (I wouldn't dignify the Daily Telegraph by calling it a news outlet), but it's an issue wholly eclipsed by the obsession with budget surplus, the carbon tax and boat people. As an aside, I don't even consider their, 'Funding from reprioritising Australian Research Council spending,' to be the worst thing in there. Other gems include: 'Coalition's Policy for Women' (at a cost of about $1 mill) 'Repriositisation of the Portrayal of Senior Australians in the Media' These may not be bad, I just have no idea what they actually mean. 'Border Security - withdraw taxpayer funded immigration assistance to illegal boat arrivals' Never mind the fact that seeking asylum isn't illegal and that unrepresented litigants tie up more of the court's time and would likely cost the public more than if they just had publicly funded legal aid. And then there's the magical 1 billion dollar dividend they predict they'll save by stopping additional refugee boats, the scrapping of the carbon tax, funding the abolition of the mining tax by cutting the schoolkids bonus and low income super contributions and the mass culling of public sector jobs. The whole thing wreaks of austerity. *For those interested in the financial aspect of what we in Australia are going to have to deal with for the next 3 years or so, this is a link to the LNP costings by the PBO (Parliamentary Budget Office).

I never took analytical chemistry courses at uni as they weren't on offer, but I think they usually cover information on error, accuracy, precision and specific information about different types of equipment and their associated measurements as well as general information about sample prep and experimental techniques. I don't seem to recall my first year general chemistry text going into any detail on those fronts, if they covered them at all.