hypervalent_iodine

Sensei, I don't think it's very fair to comment that her child doesn't like her food rather than having a food phobia. One of my best friends from high school has a child with very similar phobias and I've become fairly informed through her about the generalities of children with autism. It really has nothing to do with just not liking her food, he just simply won't eat anything. He's almost 4, goes to 2 or 3 different types of therapy for his autism (including food therapy, which the OP mentioned), and literally the only solid food he'll eat that doesn't result in a complete meltdown is M&M's. He still lives off his bottle. I've known others who at 8 would only eat fries. It is hard - really hard - to try and manage a child who has these sorts of conditions. You have to work with what you've got. Rocksolid, I am sorry that you felt people were judging your parenting style. Please know however that they come from a place of wanting to help, not criticise you. I can empathise with your frustration. I am sure that you have been dealing with it for many years and tried many things to help your son eat better. I don't have a lot of advice for your specific issue. One possibility I thought of, which may or may not be possible, is to ask if the school would grill the sandwiches for you if you provided them with a cheap sandwich press? The might be fairly accommodating for you given your son's condition. She also said he was autistic, which I understand is a varied condition, but surely the link between the poor eating and the autism was pretty heavily implied? Moreover, she wasn't asking for advice on how to fix his eating, so you hardly need to know about the specifics of the phobia. All she wanted to know was how best to stop certain food items from going soggy.

! Moderator Note Mikemikev, Firstly, Arete defined populations some posts ago. Please go back through the thread and review the posts that have been made. Secondly, responding to posts by simply saying "nonsense" is not productive. You are required to respond to scientific points and reubbtals to your arguments in the same scientific and rigorous manner. If you do not do this, staff will take it as you not willing to contribute positively to discussion and we will close this.

! Moderator Note Saxon / Rune / Spartan / whoever else, Stop making multiple accounts on this forum for the singular purpose of refuting Mikemikev, and making posts about his history elsewhere. Staff are aware of his history (which is irrelevant to what we do at SFN anyway), and sock puppetry is prohibited.

This is not what the sandbox is for. Closed.

Let's not get bogged down into the content of the thread that was closed, and return to the topic of this thread.

Is there any particular reason you are choosing to ignore the other half of my mod tip? You do realise that my post is visible to everyone, right? My whole post from that thread: ! Moderator Note I think the rational responses here have covered the ridiculous premise outlined in the OP fairly well. I am closing this. Mikemikev, be aware that posting what essentially amounts to derogatory slurs against groups of people is prohibited by the rules you agreed to upon registering. You should also note that being abusive towards our members is not tolerated, nor is in allowed. You are toeing a fine line here. Do not tempt it again.

If you believe there were posts that insulted you, report them. If we agree, we'll do something about it. Specifically relating to your thread: if they were there, I certainly didn't see them. All I saw were the posts (yes, plural) made by yourself that were unnecessarily hostile and / or abusive towards other members (and we can now include this post of yours in that list). As for the scientific content of your post (or lack thereof), why does that even matter here? It's not relevant to why I closed the thread, and I think it was well covered by the other posts in the thread besides. Frankly, the OP and subsequent posts of that thread, as well as posts in other threads, point towards you coming into the thread with an agenda. That is not a good or objective starting point for discussion, particularly on a topic that already has such a huge potential to go the wrong way. Perhaps that is not the case, but it certainly seems to be.

Besides the barely concealed racist undertones, you made it pretty apparent that you weren't there for genuine discussion the moment you began responding to members by insulting them. Why should I have waited for you to do that again before I closed it, exactly? Our forum allows discussion of most things, provided that they do not go against the rules. Your posts did. You made it very apparent that this wasn't going to change. Your thread got closed. I hope that clarifies it for you.

! Moderator Note You've been told at least 100 times to post things in the correct forum. This has nothing to do with chemistry. I'm closing this. You may reopen it in the correct place.

! Moderator Note I think the rational responses here have covered the ridiculous premise outlined in the OP fairly well. I am closing this. Mikemikev, be aware that posting what essentially amounts to derogatory slurs against groups of people is prohibited by the rules you agreed to upon registering. You should also note that being abusive towards our members is not tolerated, nor is in allowed. You are toeing a fine line here. Do not tempt it again.

And as such, this is locked.

I assume this is homework? If so, what do you think? Which part of the molecule is responsible for it being basic?

I suppose you could use them for chromatography, but I'm not sure why you would. Benzene is something that is used much less now than it used to be because of its known carcinogenic effects. Acetic acid can be used to separate some compounds with column chromatography, but you would probably use it with ethyl acetate / pet. spirit (or hexane) rather than benzene. I can't think of anything else you would use it for in industry, but it's not a sector I'm overly familiar with. Chloroform and methanol is used in chromatography as well. It's fairly effective at separating amines, for example.

! Moderator Note koolman, We would be more than happy to help you answer these questions, but you cannot expect us to simply do them for you. Where are you stuck and what have you done? This applies to all of your threads, which I have now moved to Homework Help.

Sensei is correct to say that you should be drawing in your hydrogen atoms. When you are writing in the C's, the hydrogen a must also be included. I personally prefer using the zig zag style of drawing molecules, but not all students are immediately comfortable with this. He also eluded to, but didn't explicitly mention the fact that your starting material is chemically incorrect and makes little sense. CO2Me is a methyl ester group. You did not draw a methyl ester group. Some other points before we get to your main problem. Your title indicates that you think this is an addition reaction. It is not. It is a substitution reaction. Secondly, in your first mechanistic step, you drew the Ag+ ion attacking the double bond. Ignoring the fact that this wouldn't happen, it doesn't make chemical sense to have an electrophile attacking a nucleophile. By convention, we always write the nucleophile (the thing with the electrons) attacking the electrophile (the thing without). Now then. Your main issue is that AgF is not a reagent for the addition of F across a double bond, and you're just not going to have silver bonding to a carbon like that. I mentioned what sort of reaction this is above, but consider the other reactive points in your molecule and what the AgF provides a source of. It may also be useful to consider the types of salts that Ag prefers to make (consider the hard / soft nature).

! Moderator Note Tampitump, While I will acknowledge that you have outlined an okay topic for debate, the tone of your OP and your subsequent posts reads more like you wish to use this thread simply to rail on religion. This is a science forum, however we very much discourage threads that seemingly set out to flame a group of people or person. It does not open the way for genuine discussion, which is what we aim to achieve at SFN. With this in mind, and considering the fact that this is apparently turning into more of a conversation about the many ways in which the Bible is not accurate, I am closing this pending further review.

I would think that converting to amino acid sequence is fairly trivial if you already have the reading frame. There should be plenty of programs online that do this. http://web.expasy.org/translate/ For example.

The real question is who are you not?

HBr is fine. It's at a secondary position, so in theory it might do either. You can promote one path over the other by altering conditions, but it doesn't matter so much. Your starting material is racemic anyway, so which one you promote won't change the outcome.

Sorry to only now be replying to this. The compound can certainly be made, but not with the two compounds you have listed. I would go via the Aldol route I mentioned (using acetaldehyde and 2-pentanone), followed by substitution of the alcohol to get the bromo compound.

What exactly is your problem?

! Moderator Note Capiert, start making sense and complying with the rules of this forum, or this is being closed.

How exactly do you propose to do the reaction explicitly mentioned and asked about in the OP by radical addition? OP: First thing: you haven't drawn a hexanone, you've drawn a heptanone. Which is correct? Could you also give more info on this question? Is there some restriction for what your starting materials can be? Are you actually planning on doing this? As to your specific reaction schemes: formation of the C-C bond isn't going to occur with the the two molecules you have there. Are you familiar with what an Aldol reaction is? This might be a better route.

1. I think bromination is a good route. You can form carbanion bases with alkynes using NaNH2, which you can then use to substitute the Br. 2. What I had in mind was dehydration to the alkene, followed by formation of the diol with OsO4, oxidation of the two alcohols and then Grignard. So, 4 steps unless you count the protonation. You could also make the diol by making the epoxide and ring opening it with a hydroxide base.

1. Grignard isn't going to give you that product in 2 steps. What other C-C forming reactions do you know of? 2. I can think of a way to make it in 3 steps, but I'm not sure what sort of reactions you have learnt. Grignard is along the right lines, but as you have identified, you are then left with nothing much to alter to add the second phenyl and OH groups. Perhaps consider installing the second reactive point on C-3 first? How much have you learnt about synthesis of diols?