hypervalent_iodine

By forming an extremely ordered and regular lattice structure, supported by hydrogen bonding. I would encourage you do some background reading on basic chemistry and physics. You are muddling very fundamental concepts here, and confusing yourself in the process.

taxonomy26 has been suspended for one week following an abusive outburst.

Just quickly, your mechanism doesn't follow. The first protonation is perhaps in the wrong place. I would consider the double bond first. How does that last structure result in the product? I also wonder if you meant to write remove MeOH rather than remove water.

I don't think anyone would be able to make it for you cheaply, as it is relatively inexpensive to buy for laboratory purposes and so most labs would just purchase it. I am not familiar with all of the supply companies in the US, but you will likely find that they either won't sell to you, or it will wind up costing about the same or (more likely), it will be more expensive.

The mechanism isn't fully agreed upon I don't think, but you're more or less correct. I would add that the bromine isn't kicked out by the Grignard reagent, though. It forms part of the Grignard reagent following oxidative insertion of the magnesium into the C-Br bond. The end result is the same in that it still gives you what is essentially a source of carbanions. As well, the protonation step generally occurs during quenching of the reaction with acid.

The Angry Intellect has been banned following a number of abusive posts and PM's.

! Moderator Note We're done here. The Angry Intellect, please aim for more civility and maturity in your posts in future. We won't tolerate your insulting words, and please do keep your posts a little more family friendly.

Based on the pKsp's reported here: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j100620a001 Neither is especially soluble in DMF. The iodide is about 100 times less soluble, but the difference is negligible in practical terms (pKsp is 14.8 for the chloride and 16.1 for the iodide).

The problem is that you have three potential products because you have two alpha carbons in that compound. You could end up alkylating one or both of those, and good luck trying to separate them out (I realise this probably isn't something you're doing, but it's worth taking into consideration). I would alkylate with your method at the alpha position first, then do the Michael.

I wouldn't do the 1,4 addition first. You'll notice that your other group if attached to the alpha carbon. If you've learned about Michael additions, I assume you know about the special reactivity that those centres impart? If you do the Michael addition first, you open up not only the alpha carbon you want to react, but the other one as well. Think about reactions you know that use the alpha carbon for creating C-C bonds. That should help you.

No.

Sensei, you have a knack for making these things seem confusing. OP: consider the unbalanced reaction first and foremost. NxOy + H2 --> H2O + NH3 (x and y are the numbers of each atom respectively) Based on your compound, you should be able to see that all of the nitrogen and all of the oxygen in the product came from the compound. What you need to work out is the molar ratio of nitrogen to oxygen. For instance, if you discover you have 2 mole of nitrogen and 2 of oxygen, the ratio of nitrogen to oxygen would be 1:1 and the empirical formula is NO. As Sensei mentioned, your first task is to work out the moles of water and of ammonia. You have the masses of each, so this is simply a matter of using an equation you should be familiar with, n = m/MW (n is number of moles, m is mass in g and MW is molar mass in g / mol). This then allows you to work out how many moles of nitrogen and oxygen you have, since for every mole of NH3 and H2O, you have 1 mole of N and O, respectively. It is then just a matter of working out the ratio into whole numbers, which you can do by dividing your smallest number by itself and the other by the same number. For example, if you work out you have 0.0334 moles of N and 0.1002 moles of oxygen, you would divide both by the smallest number (0.0334), giving you 1 for nitrogen and 3 for oxygen. This makes the ratio of N:O 1:3 and the formula NO3. Hope that helps.

sunshaker has been suspended for 7 days following a report threatening SFN and for the combined violations of our rules against preaching, etc.

Could you give more information? What sort of amino acid? You are going to run into difficulty with the free amine of the acid, so I would suggest protecting it. It's all pretty well established chemistry, though. You should be able to find protocols through Google Scholar or SciFinder very easily.

As did I. I also just finished teaching gas laws to some first year chemistry students.

Done

It's also worth noting that Mercola is an A+ crank and any health advice he gives is deserving of some heavy scrutiny. Do you have any scientific studies that support your claim?

Just for the record, Sato, I neg repped you because I felt your argument to be irrelevant, misrepresentative of the issues directly related in this thread, and poorly constructed, not simply because I disagreed with you. I am sorry that you feel this is just cause to leave SFN. We have certainly benefitted from your contributions here in the past. However, I do not feel anyone owes you an apology for their posts here.

! Moderator Note And yet, his point remains valid. It is your task to argue in terms of science and evidence. All you have managed to do so far is write a fairly unconvincing story. If you have a hypothesis, please outline it and please provide evidence and proper reasoning as to why your idea is valid. You will be expected to support your claims. This has been moved to Speculations. Please review the additional rules of this forum before posting further. Do not respond to this mod note in-thread.

That's because there's no protons to dissociate. Look up the pKb of carbonate or look up the Ka of HCO3-.

! Moderator Note Moved to speculations. Please be aware of the extra set of rules we have governing this section of SFN.

Oh no, whatever will we do without your insightful contributions to this forum. ! Moderator Note Thread closed, also.

! Moderator Note Truly, if you consider moderators of a forum exercising their duties in closing a thread to be evil, you have not looked out your window very much. This too is being closed. I guess I can't help myself.

! Moderator Note As I'm sure you know, we are not going to be generous with this thread. Here is what I want you to do. Very clearly, and in as succinct a manner as possible, detail what is meant by SINK to SOURCE. I want an exact definition. I do not want this by way of more convoluted examples. If you cannot give one, this conversation is pointless. I do not want to see any photos of rivers or of your art work. Use your words and use them well, or expect this to get closed.

davidelkins, who has been a permanent fixture in the mod queue for a while, has been promoted!