hypervalent_iodine

As CharonY mentioned in your other thread, these are probably things you should be getting specific in-house training for. How much antibiotic you use depends on what concentrations you think you should be working at. I think this is species and antibiotic dependant, so I would be asking your supervisor about this. I have only ever done MICs in 96 well plates using colonies picked from plates and diluted to a particular OD or CFU, but in this I have generally always used 4uL of antibiotic stock solution to get to my desired final concentration (meaning that my stock is 50x this concentration) and 1:2 dilutions thereafter across the plate. I think this is fairly routine, though I am quite new to microbiology.

Your body is extremely good at balancing and maintaining its pH. Making any meaningful change to the pH of your body overall would involve amounts of acid or base large enough to be toxic. As for your comment about Inuits, this seems dubious. Firstly, how do you know that is true? Secondly, what is the average life expectancy of these people? Could it be true that these people have a similar cancer rate to other groups, but just aren't being diagnosed? Finally, a group of people with lower cancer incidence does not I think provide clues about how to treat cancer once you have it. Methods of prevention are not the same as you would use for treatment.

That's has always been the case in my experience with friends and family who have had cancer. OP: just a comment about the honey / bicarbonate water. That's not how your body works. Moreover, I don't know that straight bicarb will do much to cancer cells. Please be wary of what you read and trust in your doctors (though be insistent with them if something seems wrong). There are a lot of charlatans trying to push what seem like logical and straight forward solutions to cancer, but these people are liars and worse, they play knowingly with people's lives. There was a story here not long ago about a woman who claimed to have cured cancer with 'whole' foods and alternative therapies. She built a small empire out of it. People began to be suspicious when a promised $300k donation never made it to a charity and then last year it was revealed that she never had cancer in the first place. These people are the lowest of the low. Don't trust them.

I have no idea what is meant by potency, but I do know that volume x conc. will get you number of moles rather than a mass. Converting that to mass of antibiotic would mean you would divide by molar mass. Where are the antibiotics coming from (i.e. are they bought as pure compound or as the marketable item) and how are you calculating purity? My guess is that potency refers to the combination of molar mass and w/w purity. For example, if you have a sample of an antibiotic that is 150 g / mol and you know the mass % purity of your sample to be say, 50%, then obtaining 1 mole of your antibiotic would mean you need 300 g of your sample. Thus, if you wanted to make a 1M solution, you would dissolve 300 g into 1 L. Or, as per your calculation, mass = volume x conc. / potency = 1 L x 1 mole / L / 300 g / mol. Within this example and using this reasoning, 300 g would be the 'potency,' and this would obviously change with molar mass and % purity (I calculated it by dividing molar mass by % purity x 100). I should also add that I have not encountered this term in this context before and I could be wrong in my thinking.

! Moderator Note We're definitely done here. elizsia, please stop with the preaching. This is a discussion forum, not your blog.

Some of you may not be aware of the mod queue feature, or have seen it mentioned but do not know what it is. It's a new toy we received in one of the last major updates a while back, which allows staff to mark all posts made by a member as unapproved until staff are able to review it. We use this for a number of reasons, usually as an alternative to suspensions. The time limit we set on these is not set in stone. We can remove it as soon as we think the issues are resolved, or if this fails to be the case, we will either extend the time frame or suspend / ban the offending person. Since we have a thread for banned and suspended users, and since we have started using this feature more in recent months, it seemed prudent to create a thread for those in the mod queue. To start things off, elizsia has been added to the queue for 21 days for spamming the forum with preachy nonsense.

! Moderator Note It seems that this thread is little more than an attempt at a sermon. Did you have a point or question you wished to discuss?

What is your product? Even with tailing, and assuming you've properly optimised your running solvent, you should still be able to see a product spot. The real issue comes with separation on a silica column. Otherwise, a good trick is to pre-treat your plate with your solvent plus 2-5% TEA and subsequently run your spot in your solvent plus about 1% TEA.

! Moderator Note Further to Phi's post, I would also like to add that the topic of this thread is not about any elaborate conspiracy theories, nor is it about whether or not AGW is real. Please keep this in mind.

CHCl3 is 7.26ppm. Water varies, but it is generally visible at 1.56 ppm. BabockHall is correct in stating that H-bonding can and will change this, however.

conway has been suspended for 7 days for the crime of constantly attempting to reopen closed topics.

! Moderator Note psmegmasterson, I am giving you one last chance to answer the questions asked of you here before this is closed. Specifically, the questions asking you to derive the energy states of hydrogen.

! Moderator Note I realise this is a little belated. Mike, you were given a chance to provide more definition and some science to clarify yourself. You have not, and now this is closed.

! Moderator Note As we're nearing 50 pages, it is clear that this thread has lost its initial purpose and any good or informative posts are by now lost in the quagmire. There is little benefit to be derived from continuing this thread as it is, and so staff have decided to close it. Shelagh, for the record: your posts in this thread leave much to be desired. If you hope to continue here in a positive and productive manner I would suggest you make a better attempt at intelligent discussion. You have made assertion upon assertion here and yet when questioned on it, the best you can do is claim martyrdom or post a link to a blog. This is unacceptable and we will not tolerate it.

You realise how ridiculous and counterproductive this is, right?

A very pervasive but decidedly wrong explanation is that these atoms are able to exceed their valency because of the presence of low-lying d-orbitals. This is not in fact the case and we have known this since the 1950's or there abouts. I'm going to copy a small excerpt of something I wrote a few years back, which explains part of it. I hope that makes sense. I took out the reference numbers from the above, but I can provide them if you're interested. Edit: this wiki article is also pretty good at explaining it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervalent_molecule

The process you're talking about is just melting, which by definition means that the substance has to be able to return to its initial state. One thing I would say, however, is that the process of a liquid turning into a solid would release energy rather than requiring it.

In this context, yes. I'm not sure what you are Googling if you aren't getting results. I looked up papers using the terms I mentioned in my last post via Goggle Scholar and got thousands.

Surely you are isolating it rather than synthesising it? What about it are you finding difficult to navigate? I think you're mostly just separating it from the lignocellulosic biomass, and acid hydrolysis should be okay for this. In any case, purifying it from plant samples is not an uncommon practice, so a Google Scholar search or a SciFinder search for specific protocols should give you plenty of hits.

! Moderator Note Mike, you've posted this in the science section, and yet I see nothing even remotely scientific offered. Indeed, I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at here. Please clarify this in your next post, or I will be closing the thread.

! Moderator Note I think everyone needs to take a breath. I'm closing this pending review.

Pippo, You treated your crops with a non-organic pesticide. That means that regardless of how much of it is left at the end, your product is not organic. It doesn't matter that a GC confirms there is nothing left. All that matters is that you used it at all. I do not understand why you are being so obtuse about this very simple fact.

Why are you trying to quantify it? You can normally get a good idea of how good / bad it is by looking at the spectra of something. In any case, you could add a reference of known concentration to your CDCl3 and compare integration. If you know the volume of CDCl3 in the tube, you should be able to work out the % impurity. Water peaks do not always come up at 1.56 ppm. It can and often does vary. I wouldn't be too concerned by it, provided you are sure it is water.

I'm not quite that ignorant. In fact, I was hoping to tease out where the OP believed this distinction to lie, since it was clear that they believed there to be one. My initial inclination was to post the Tim Minchin song that strange quoted, but I decided for a more probative approach. It's hard to have a discussion when all you're doing is talking past each other after all. Also, if you could not use the term retarded in such a derogatory manner, it would be appreciated.

How does it achieve this? No one is interested in being diverted to a YouTube video. You need to detail the science here in your posts or not at all.