hypervalent_iodine

Philip K. Dick has been banned for being virtually nothing but abusive in his short time here.

! Moderator Note Staff have decided to leave this thread closed, since it seems to have run its course. If people would like to open more directed threads on the many aspects of gun control, you are welcome to do so.

I suppose this is as good a place as any to mention that admin can alter individual member restrictions by assigning them to different groups. We have used this in the past, but perhaps we will employ it a bit more.

! Moderator Note If everyone could please stick to the topic, it would be appreciated.

! Moderator Note That doesn't seem to have stopped you so far? Please stop hijacking this thread. If you want to post about your own hypotheses, do so elsewhere.

! Moderator Note Save the debating for somewhere else please, and stick to the topic.

Like votes are counted the same as upvotes and for whatever reason, they are a compulsory feature of having the reputation system enabled. I tried, because I felt they were confusing as well, but we can’t get rid of them. I think I can change their value, but it makes sense that they are worth +1 to my mind.

I have no idea. My building is lucky enough to have its own glass blower, so we just get things like that made up for us. If you are at a University you could try and contact some organic chemistry labs and see what they have. Also, I’m not sure I’m seeing what you mean by oil seeping out? I suspect you are missing the point of what continuous extraction is. Depending on which layer you want out of the partition, you would choose either a higher arm or a lower one. In your case, you’d want the higher one I think. That way, when your heptane boils and drips down into your oil, only the heptane layer should then run out into the round bottom flask when it fills up. These are normally done with a more traditional partition, say with water and some other organic solvent, and looks like this:

This is why we have resident expert badges.

I count a total of 8 down votes by you, which is quite small by comparison to most.

We have absolutely no way of being able to do that. If the points accumulate on the post, they have to accumulate in the total. I also agree with zapatos that both should contribute if we have both available.

When you say this, do you mean that the negative point should accrue on individual posts, but not form part of the cumulative reputation displayed on profiles?

This has been brought up before, but I would like to gather some consensus from members as to what is wanted so that I may do something about it (or not, as the case may be). Do you think the ability to down vote posts / statuses should be removed (and why)? It has been a bit more problematic with this new update, as we can no longer set independent limits on how much negative rep a person can give in a day. That being said, I think it can still serve a valuable purpose in separating the wheat from the chaff, and can give newer members an immediate sense of what we accept as a community, as well as giving an indication as to the scientific veracity of certain posts.

If that is the will of the people, then I am happy to oblige. I'll open a thread on it and see what the consensus is.

I am not sure why there is a lag between when you give a post a rep point, and when the system registers it. As for the, 'like,' feature, it is something that came with the new software and that appears to be compulsory if you have the reputation system enabled. It acts in the same way as an upvote (i.e. it registers as a +1). Edit: I have tried to see if I could remove the 'like' and just have the up and down vote as per previous iterations of the software, and it was not possible. You can enable / disable every other possible reaction, just not that one. Your guess is as good as mine as to why that is.

! Moderator Note Stop eating reaction products if you don’t know what you’re doing (and heck, even if you do), and go to a doctor. Your infection isn’t going to beat itself, as you say, and pseudoscience won’t help either.

Why do you want to know?

I have noticed this too, but I’m not sure how to fix it. As an alternative, you can search the member name and search term plus site:scienceforums.net on Google, or you could go to their profile and trawl through their content.

Okay, so your problem is that you’re using the wrong by of equipment. A Soxhlet extractor is not used for continuous liquid liquid extraction, it’s used for extracting things out of solids. You need a different bit of glassware. It’s not all that common though, so you might find it hard to get a hold of. My suggestion would be to use normal partition in a separatory funnel with room temp solvent. You might have to do this several times. FTR, what you need if you wanted to keep going with continuous extraction looks like this:

It does sound like your extract is a bit dodgy. Can you tell me how much oil you’re typically getting from this compared to what you get out at the end? I’ll respond more in a bit about the continuous extraction.

Do you have any thoughts? Do you know the difference between a common / trivial name and IUPAC nomenclature?

! Moderator Note This isn't your blog. If you have a question or point you wish to discuss, make it clear and concise. This is closed.

1x0 has been permanently banned from accessing the site for continued thread hijacking, and generally spouting nonsense.

This is basically the case here. Itoero, I will gladly go and fix it for you, but it will have to be tomorrow. One of the things I am coming to hate in this new software is the inability to click through directly to the post a rep point was given to. I just don’t have the patience to scroll through a 31 page thread on my phone. Somewhat related, do people prefer seeing the reputation of each post as a single cumulative number (as it is now), or the full break down of rep points a post was given (as it was about a week or two ago)?

december6543 and science2008 are added to this list.