hypervalent_iodine

! Moderator Note fiveworlds, your posts are disappearing for a reason. I have said you are off topic, so please stop.

! Moderator Note You have no basis for that assessment, and it is not on topic. I ask that you kindly stop with this line of discussion.

CharonY mentions it on the previous page in passing. Personally, I haven't read it, so can't comment.

Clockwork and Catch-22 do take some getting used to. I found once I was comfortable with the pace and jargon, I could meet them on their level and enjoy it. Admittedly, you do have to work for it, and they are definitely not books I'd be up to re-reading unless I had a lot of spare time and mental energy. J Irving is an interesting author. I was lent one of his books by a history teacher I had once in high school, and have since read all but one. I would have to agree that Garp is not his best. I suppose that makes it overrated. My favourite is A Prayer for Owen Meany, closely followed by Cider House Rules and Hotel New Hampshire. After a few of his books, they do start to blend. He really takes 'talk about what you know' to its absolute zenith, and only focuses his characters around very few central elements. There's always some combination of wrestling, Vienna, Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine, some sort of bizarre family dynamic, and weird sexual stuff. Garp was one of the last one of his I read, and I found it was wearing a little thin on me by that point.

It’s a good distraction during hours of mindless experiments for me. I haven’t found the slower pace to be an issue, but that’s probably personal taste.

I found it to not be so bad in audio book form. Same with a lot of Tolkien’s more involved books. There is a version of Children of Hurin narrated by the late, great Christopher Lee that I found to be very good, but I can’t imagine finding it so engaging without his reading it.

Harry Potter certainly isn't well written, I think the appeal comes more from how immersive the universe is. I loved them when I was a kid / teenager, and have enjoyed them since upon re-reading (though I think part of this is due to nostalgia). Her other books under her name and under Robert Galbraith are, frankly, garbage. Her characters are far too superficial and obvious, which is not a problem so much when you're writing YA fiction, but makes for a very tedious read in most other circumstances.

Then I suggest you start by rectifying that first. It is too much of a task for me to try and do so here, so it is best you consult a text book or Google.

The Picture of Dorian Grey. I have never been made so bored by a book in my entire life.

It would depend on too many variables to give you an accurate answer. The best way to know is to try.

He is okay, he is just busy (as far as I know).

Perhaps start with the questions I stated in my last post. How familiar are you with NMR?

! Moderator Note I’m closing this one too. As I said in the other thread, those located in Aus can file a complaint to the ACCC. I hardly think you’ll get anywhere with it, but it’s worth a shot.

! Moderator Note I am sorry, but we are not a place for medical advice. I would continue to seek the advice of your doctors.

To be honest, I wouldn't call them complex. Adamantane, and the tetramethyl derivative in the stamp, is a product found in crude oil, if that helps. It is a caged hydrocarbon of the diamondoid family. I will look up the other compound tomorrow. I'm sure it has some significance beyond it simply having aromatic rings and ether groups. You could also attempt to contact the artists themselves. I'm sure they would know.

I don't know about that being the best way. It really depends on context / what information you want to relay. Detailed structural characteristics are probably not useful to most non-scientists, who likely wouldn't know how to interpret the jargon.

Yes, the ball and stick model. I am not sure that molecule specifically is used for anything in particular, but adamantane and its derivatives have many uses, from drug compounds (amantadine, eg), to catalyst systems, to making dendrimers. My group has published reviews on the first two. The vertical molecule looks like PET, yes. I couldn't call the horizontal molecule a polymer. It also can't be given an exact name as part of the molecule is undefined (the -OR group). It is some sort of biphenyl compound, containing several ether linkages.

I don't know exactly what it is by looking at it, but my immediate thought is that it does give the appearance of something that might be used as a liquid crystal. I would have to check SciFinder to know for sure. The other molecule on there is 1,3,5,7-tetramethyladamantane, if you were interested.

Could you perhaps detail what you have done and where you are stuck? To start with, what do the IR absorptions tell you? Have you calculated DBE?

! Moderator Note We're done here. Thread closed.

Mine is a class of reagents I used to work with extensively during honours (when I first joined) and my first PhD attempt. The project was an utter failure, and in hindsight I do wish I’d picked something a little less haunting.

! Moderator Note I think this has gone beyond the OP somewhat now. I am removing phone numbers posted in a previous post - please do not share someone else's private info. For anyone new coming to this thread, these people are quite obviously scammers, and you should not give them money. Their trick with combustion of water is just that - a trick. I am closing this thread. Unfortunately, I am not sure what the recourse is for giving money over to snake oil salesmen like these. As some recent posters here are in Australia, I would recommend contacting the police and filing a complaint with the ACCC.

sunshinesunshine has been banned as a suspected sock puppet of ivylove

You’re mixing threads up. In your other one your reaction is with two solid salts. They won’t react like that, so they need to be in solution. What do you think the other 86% is in 14% HCl? Do you expect your salts will dissolve in the other solvents you mentioned? I wouldn’t. I didn’t see that HCl mentioned at all in your other thread, anyway. Perhaps I should merge your two threads so we can stop confusion? Equals nothing. Please read through my posts in the other thread, I have tried to point you in the direction that would tell you where you are going wrong. And once again, please don’t do reactions when you don’t know what you are doing. Even if you do, don’t do it on no sleep!

Your first sentence a few posts up does not make any sense. Recarboxylate what? You haven’t decarboxylated anything? And what would hydrogen have to do with that anyway? I’m sorry you feel I was useless and that you are in pain, but your OP contained many errors and demonstrated a lack of chemical knowledge. I advised you the same way I would advise anyone who clearly doesn’t know what they’re doing when it comes to synthetic chemistry: don’t do it. I am not pointing it out to upset, annoy, or troll. It is simply out of concern for your safety. I did point you to some useful resources that might help - did you look at those? If you read it, you would see hot ice is sodium acetate, one of the things in your initial (incorrect) reaction equation. I pointed it out to you because you mentioned wanting to teach your students about nucleation. The hot ice tower is a great visual demonstration of that. Speaking of your equation, have you identified what is wrong with it and why is isn’t correct? Why are you trying to crystallise out acetic acid? It’s melting point is about 16oC. It’s a liquid at room temperature. What is the problem with just distilling it? Moreover, why are you trying to make it when it’s cheap enough to just buy and purify? I have added to your other thread about the issues with your synthetic route. It won’t work.