hypervalent_iodine

! Moderator Note This section is for science news, not links to book chapters.

I definitely agree that the questions are confusingly written. I will think on it more and get back to you tomorrow, though you may need to contact your professor or TA.

Absorbance of what, exactly? How do you figure that? They haven't said that the FeSCN2+ was made from those two ions, just that there was a flask that contained FeSCN2+. Besides, this is a reaction that exists in equilibrium and does not go to completion (in addition to the fact that they said that it was an initial concentration of FeSCN2+). Perhaps try writing the reaction in the other direction. You may find this useful: http://mctcteach.org/chemistry/C1152/Laboratory/Lab_Protocals/Det_of_Equil_Const_v.1.16.pdf

Repetition. Nomenclature in particular is like learning another language, but it's systematic. Once you have the basics down, you'll be fine.

! Moderator Note You may not. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note Idea1234, please detail your argument here, within the text of your post. Links are to be used to support your post, not to be the entirety of it. This will be closed if you cannot comply.

! Moderator Note Moved to homework help. OP, please show us some attempt at solving this question, and detail where you are stuck. We do not do people's homework for them.

! Moderator Note You are not healing anybody with this. Go to a doctor.

! Moderator Note Moved to the Lounge

I wouldn't think so, but I'm not very familiar with the process of selection there.

! Moderator Note NortonH, if you can't provide any evidence to support your case, all you are doing is baseless posturing. Kindly provide some, or you will find your posts split to the trash.

! Moderator Note Stick to the topic, please. And while you're at it, go look up what a watt is. Do not respond to this mod note within this thread. Any replies will be removed.

Could you elaborate more on the requirements of your assessment? What other ideas have you considered? I always found the plant based research assignments to be the easiest. The results are normally quite clear if you have the right set up. I think one of the ones I did was investigating the effect of salinity on plant growth and development. We determined a rough concentration of salt in ocean water by evaporating off the water and weighing the residue, and used water with the same NaCl concentration to water the plants. We then had another group watered with distilled water, and one with an amount half way in between. A student I tutored last year did something similar to determine the effect of agricultural and industrial run off by watering plants with water from river sources near industrial plants and farms. Another one I did was looking at the effect of light and glucose on growth, but this was using my school’s plant tissue culture lab. You have lots of options!

I think you are reading more into my post than what is actually there. I said I am happy to use your meaning, and I said that with the implication that I was satisfied that you had explained sufficiently. I’m sorry that you don’t agree your use of the word is unusual, but everyone else here does. Whether or not you are correct, surely it serves you better to account for possible misunderstanding than it is to stubbornly deny it being an issue. I am not trolling you, I am trying to prompt the conversation you are supposedly after. Also, this might be a thread you started, but you do not get to dictate how it is run or how people choose to respond.

Call it a subsidy if you wish, but I think you should make your context clear in the post to avoid confusion. I know it is a few years old, but it addresses the points I mentioned. I will aim to find some more recent ones later. Currently low on time and computer access.

Surely this is a question best asked of your normal suppliers?

I look forward to reading it.

I posted in direct response to you, so the assumption is that I am responding in reference to your chosen definition. If you care to read the article I posted, I believe there are some more links in there.

Would you kindly respond to the last part of my post? I have attempted to address your points there and would like your insight.

I do not believe that what was being implied was that all members suffered the types of misunderstandings that led them to gain negative reputation, just that some were. This is distinctly not okay, and is prohibited by our forum rules. If people are being insulting (note: not simply critical), then staff want to know about that so that it may be dealt with. We try to be as objective as possible in these matters, and have closed threads down in the past that we felt were written to incite those of religious persuasion (for example). I will not deny that this forum has a lot of people who share the same or similar opinions on a lot of things, and that it can occasionally produce some bias in the way rep points are given out. I am not sure that is that pervasive of an issue, but I accept your viewpoint.

A couple of things. The rules, which you agreed to when you signed up to this forum, prohibit a member from opening multiple threads on one topic. You do not get to get around that because you are not satisfied with the responses you were getting. Secondly, you do not get to dictate who is able to participate in a thread or even how they participate. If you do not agree with someone's post, you are free to make your case to them as to why they are wrong or why you think they have missed the point. Now, persistently wrong definitions of what constitutes a subsidy aside, I still find several issues with your premise. Although, I should thank you for explaining your position a bit better in your previous post. Where is your evidence that this is the case? Certainly, wind energy and other forms of renewables were not competitive when first brought into the fray, but the point of subsidising them was to allow them to develop to the point where they were. All recent evidence now suggests that they either are, or are well on track. I came across this article, which I found interesting. Would you care to comment on it, and specifically on the quote below?

! Moderator Note I am merging this with your other thread. One per topic, please.

How are they the same? A subsidy is where money is returned in some fashion. If I was originally going to be taxed $5, but I received $1 back and was only taxed $4, then that is a susbsidy. If I was originally taxed $4 and received nothing back, even though the amounts I am being taxed in the first and third situation are the same, it is not a subsidy. I received nothing back. Do not blame me for your inability to used correct definitions of standard terms. I have tried to engage with you, I tried to get a clear idea of your position, and you refused to respond.

Good point! I was making very simple assumptions about the context.

This is why no one has given you clear answers. Your question is poorly framed, and your statement that if you think 3 is a subsidy then 1 is also does not make sense unless you make the assumption that everyone else is being taxed $5. Could you kindly explain how else this constitutes a subsidy.