hypervalent_iodine

ACUV is banned as a sock puppet of Hal.* * http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?showtopic=29763&view=findpost&p=630114

Simran, I can appreciate your situation and how frustrating it is for you as a parent. However, even if I or someone else here were a trained medical professional, it would be irresponsible for us to offer you medical advice having no in depth knowledge of your son's current state, his medical history or one on one access to him. I promise you that no one in this thread is shutting you down for the sheer pleasure of it. All I can say is that if what the doctors have advised you to do is not working for you, then you need to go back to them and tell them so that they can suggest an alternate method. If they aren't specialists for his condition, then you could always ask them to refer you to one. You might also ask them if they know of support groups for people with what your son has (in fact, I would highly recommend that you do that; they can do a world of good). In any case, the point is that for something like this, you don't want the words of people who are ultimately not in a place to give them to you. Your safest option for both you and your son is to go back to your doctor and talk to him / her or even to get a second opinion from someone else.

! Moderator Note For the last time, illuusio, NO. This is not an opportunity for you to once again drag your pet hypothesis into yet another thread it doesn't belong. You had your chances, you blew them. End of story. Staff would also appreciate if other members could observe this and avoid asking leading questions that would require illuusio to go against the countless mod notes he's been issued to answer.

! Moderator Note I'm going to one further and ask that you (Astrology) keep this line of discussion out of this thread. It's pure Speculation and does not belong in a thread within the mainstream science forums. You are welcome to post a thread in the Speculations section about your hypotheses regarding the atmosphere, but if you don't keep it out of here, you'll be looking at suspension.

! Moderator Note No. You get no more chances. You have been given 100% more chances than anyone else in your situation would otherwise be given. And since this is (yet another) thread on a topic you already have threads on (and still somehow managed to derail), I'm closing this.

Going to any website for medical advice is generally a terrible idea. Go see an actual doctor.

! Moderator Note illuusio, there will be no discussion about the substance of your hypothesis in this thread. It is about recruiting reviewers and nothing else.

The number of moles from (ii) to (iii) isn't changing if you put the entire 42.1167 g into the solution. Molarity is expressed as moles / L, so question (iv) should be fairly straight forward given your answer to (iii).

Typically, rot evaps don't have the best pumps and all the joints means you tend to lose a bit of the vacuum. A rot evap will only take off so much solvent. When something specifies that it needs to be under high vacuum, it doesn't mean to use a rotary evaporator, it means you need a good, high vacuum pump and (probably) some sort of solvent trap. Something capable of going to 0.1 mm Hg. ruggerio, it might help if we knew what specifically this was for?

They do this every couple of years. I can only assume out of pity.

The biologists are at it again, I see.

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please.

Sorry this took me so long to get to. I did get your PM, but I may or may not have forgotten about it later on when I had the time to reply. I'm not sure that sentence you quoted really supports the argument that those two protons aren't equivalent. The compound has symmetry and since the -CH=CH- system is planar, each hydrogen attached to either side of the double bond will be in the exact same environment as the other. If you build a 3D model of the system, you should see how they are indistinguishable from one another. Hope that helps.

! Moderator Note Astrology, Please keep discussions in accordance with accepted science in the main forums. 'God did it' is not an argument that belongs here.

! Moderator Note Don't start, illuusio. If you start dragging in all of your closed threads into here, staff will close this one as well.

! Moderator Note A-wal, I have warned you in threads and I have warned you in PM. This kind of behavior is not tolerated here. If you can't play nice, I'm going to take away your toys for a week. Consider this your last warning.

It's really very simple. We have the mainstream science forums, where questions and threads are to be responded to using mainstream and accepted science. For everything else, there's the Speculations forum. We're not trying to censor anyone who genuinely wants to discuss alternate hypotheses to whatever, but we do want to try and keep this place a little more streamlined and less confusing for new-comers.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Astrology, you are welcome to continue the discussion from your other thread here. Please do not open additional threads on the topic.

! Moderator Note Incorrect. Please review the Speculations forum rules before posting again in this thread.

Agreed and changed.

! Moderator Note A-wal, At SFN, we ask members to post in certain ways so as to facilitate proper discussion without it degenerating into insults and general asininity. You need to stop insulting or trying to aggravate members your comments against their person. Argue the points and questions others present and not the people making them or your time here will be cut short. Please do not respond to this mod note in thread. If you take issue with it, use the report feature (yellow triangle at the bottom left of this and every other post) or PM a member of staff. For your own reference, please also read the following: http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/7813-science-forums-etiquette/

sammy7 is banned permanently for being an especially rude troll.

! Moderator Note iluusio, Stop the insults and once again, the thread hijacking is also to stop. You won't be told again.

So use your imagination to extend the question into something EEI-worthy. When I had to do EEI's (I went to school in QLD), the experimental basis for the assignment didn't have to be extremely complicated. The most complicated thing I performed was an iodine-starch clock reaction, which is trivially easy to set up. The good marks come from how you use your data and what other bits of data you use to draw conclusions from. The trick with EEI's is to come up with a big-picture question that is applicable to the real world and come up with some simple tests to investigate it. Perhaps investigating how much sucrose in soft drink is too trivial and a bit pointless, but if you couple the premise of the experiment (i.e. the ability to quantitatively determine the presence of reducing sugars) with something else it suddenly becomes a great diagnostic tool for a larger project. For instance, you might look at how cooking alters the amount of reducing sugars or even the total amount of carbohydrates in a certain food type (eg. vegetables).

What kind of equipment do you have access to? Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of simple pracs they run in some first year undergrad labs that might be good for you, but they require certain machines and chemicals you might not be able to use. Determining the amount of sucrose (which is a carbohydrate) in soft drink or cereal, etc. is a nice and fairly easy one. You do however need a UV-Vis spec and 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid, which your school might not like you using. What's wrong with using one of the examples you mentioned in your OP? My other suggestion would be to try and flick through some articles in the Journal of Chemical Eduction. That might give you some good direction.You might not be able to download everything on there, but if you find something that you like, you can always use it to look into the idea elsewhere. You may also find that your high school is willing to download a copy of the paper on your behalf.