hypervalent_iodine

! Moderator Note And to add to my previous note something that I missed before - the rules on civility and personal attacks go both ways. If a person holding some religious belief is not permitted to attack those who do not share that belief, then a person who does not hold a belief in some deity is not allowed attack someone who does. iNow, you should be very well aware of our stance on personal attacks by now. As staff, our jobs are made much easier when we don't have to also deal with infractions by long time, well-established and (usually) productive members.

! Moderator Note Mr Rayon, I am failing to see where there is an hypothesis here that warrants its placement in the Speculations forum. If this was an attempt to circumvent our Philosophy and Religion rules by placing them elsewhere, know that it is not and will not be tolerated. Please re-read the comment I made in the last thread of yours that I closed. While this thread and your last one certainly ask a number questions, by no means have you asked them in way so as to facilitate discussion. Stop trying to kindle religious flame wars and please stop trying to use this forum as your own personal soap box. This is a place for discussion, not drive-by lectures on your beliefs. Thread closed.

Cookies or cheese nips. Essentially, if you make enough quality posts and staff notices you, someone will nominate you in the super top secret Res Experts forum. If staff can reach a consensus and the person in question agrees to supply food (read: cookies and cheese nips), then Cap'n bestows upon them the powers befitting their newly acquired title.

! Moderator Note I'm going to reiterate this as an official mod note. yrreg, you are to stop preaching, stop evading questions and stop being condescending. Try properly answering some questions for once or your banning prediction may very well be fulfilled.

No one was promoting transmutation of metals, just simple chemistry. Perhaps try reading the thread. Elementcollector1 has already provided one reaction.

! Moderator Note In addition to rules about advertising and soliciting donations, we also have rules about off topic conversation. Stick to the subject matter of the OP, please. If you have any questions regarding moderator notes, you are welcome to contact us via PM. Do not respond to this.

! Moderator Note No.

Well, that's not stereogenic, so you don't have to prioritise it Also, here's a better (read: more correct) explanation for your problem: (From wikipedia) Oxygen has a higher priority than nitrogen. When we look distance 2 from the stereocentre of your original drawing and we list the atoms joined to each carbon, they differ in their highest priority and the COOH gourp is a higher priority than your second stereocentre. The structure with the iodine in it (I didn't really look at that last night) goes the other way. Iodine is higher priority than oxygen, so when we look distance two from stereocentre 1, the COOH is now a lower priority than the second stereocentre.

When you assign priority, you take it one atom at a time; you don't consider what exists outside of that unless you have two of the same atoms with identical hybridisation. On your first stereocentre we have four atoms to consider (image on the far left of the picture below): a nitrogen, a hydrogen, one sp3 carbon and one sp2 carbon. The rest is ignored for now. The nitrogen and the hydrogen are easy to order, but the carbons are (at first glance) a little trickier. To distinguish which one has higher priority you need to look at the hybridisation. Since the carbon on the carbonyl group is sp2, it has a higher priority than the second carbon, which is sp3. The fact that that sp3 carbon also has a nitrogen attached to it is irrelevant, since we don't need to look that far to be able to order them. However, if we take the other example I drew (see the two images on the right), which has an isopropyl group attached to it, the story becomes a little different. Now attached to the first stereocentre we have one hydrogen, one nitrogen and two sp3 carbons (middle structure). Again, the nitrogen and hydrogen are simple to order. The carbons, however, are identical, so in order to distinguish between the two groups and assign priority, we need to look at the next atoms along (far right structure). The isopropyl carbon attached to the first stereocentre is bonded to two sp3 carbons and a hydrogen, whereas the other carbon (the second stereocentre) is bound to a nitrogen, a hydrogen and an sp2 carbon centre. The isopropyl group is therefore a lower priority than the second stereocentre. I hope I'm making sense. It's rather late here and my track record for making posts / doing anything at this time isn't crash hot.

I figured they weren't brackets, but you didn't go to any effort to explain what they represented. It's much easier to just draw something on paper or in ChemDraw - heck, even in paint. Anyway, the next priority would go to the COOH. When assigning priority, you have to take it one atom at a time. The carbon on the carboxylic acid moiety is sp2 hybridized, which means it has a higher priority than the stereogenic carbon, which is sp3. If you were to replace the COOH with, say, an isopropyl group or an isobutyl group (see below), then you would look at the next atom along the chain. In this case, the stereogenic carbon would have a higher priority since it is bound to a nitrogen and the other carbon is bound only to more carbons.

I'm having trouble making sense of your structure. Could you possibly attach an actual drawing with conventional notation instead of brackets?

! Moderator Note Pix, be wary of copying and pasting things from Facebook. I've removed the link to your profile page for your benefit (and also because it's against the rules).

! Moderator Note Owl, you seem to have a habit of introducing and arguing tangents in almost all of your threads to the point where they end up being 10 + pages of back and forth about issues almost completely separate from those you originally set out to address. I'm going to ask you to stop that here and to henceforth tailor your responses such that they pertain only to the questions you've raised in your OP. I shall now remind you of your questions, which are as follows: ! Moderator Note Since they are posed in a broader sense, there is no need to delve into specific pet topics ad naseum. Consider this your warning. If you chose to ignore it, this thread will be closed and you will likely be risking suspension.

! Moderator Note THoR, stop hijacking and derailing this thread with speculations; we have another forum for that and you are welcome to post in it. Do not respond to this mod note and do not make me tell you a third time.

! Moderator Note Given where this is posted and given that we have strict rules about civility and decorum, I'm taking a preemptive move and shutting this thread down. Mr Rayon, in future it would be appreciated if you didn't start threads that will inevitably end in a flame war amongst our membership. As well, since this is the Religion forum, a thread asking whether or not believing in God is childish is in itself a violation of our Philosophy and Religion rules. If you wish to discuss the psychology of belief in a deity, please do so in the appropriate forum.

! Moderator Note Moved to speculations. R A J A, please be mindful of where you are posting. The science forums are for mainstream science, speculative material is to be posted in speculations.

! Moderator Note IsraelUnoone, Firstly, my alias here is hypervalent_iodine. Empress of everything is simply my member title (i.e. I am hypervalent_iodine, the Empress of Everything). Note the bold. It means I'm a she. Secondly, there is no 'free energy section' and claiming that my willingness to move your thread (which you'll note is in the speculations section) instead of closing it or deleting it is proof of concept is just silly. Royston asked you valid questions and you are required (as per the rules of this forum) to respond to them with evidence or some sort of scientific argument. If you fail to do this, this thread will be closed and you will be risking suspension. Please do not respond to this.

This PDF made sense to me, though I'm no mathematician. Edit: That's not to say that what others have said doesn't make sense, it's simply another source of information that provides both an analytical and numerical solution to the problem.

Not if you asked nicely. Israel, I'm merging this with your other thread on free energy and closing your other topic.

I...what? Are my buttons that obvious? I'm moving this to the lounge. IsraelUnoone, do you have a point or should I also close this?

That doesn't answer John Cuthber's question. Additionally, it's Ca(OH)2, not CaOH.

! Moderator Note MahdiAlQaffas, one thread per topic, please. Thread closed.

As does this one. http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=members&area=signature Am I missing something?

This looks like it might be helpful.

Except then wouldn't your question be 1 + 1 = 10?