hypervalent_iodine

It's perhaps not very well presented. There are chromium based reagents that are used to oxidise to the aldehyde and not continue to the acid (PCC and PDC). As far as primary alcohols go, sodium hypochlorite would be an alternative to reagents such as PCC or PDC, rather to those used to oxidise all the way to the acid. It is also a useful alternative for secondary alcohols.

It can do both. Which one is favoured can be changed by tuning the conditions (strength of the base, solvent, temperature, etc.) or is selected for based on inherent features of the molecule. With that said, I would argue that the conversion that they have outlined is best done with other halogenating units.

Going on a fishing expedition is not going to help you, not to mention being prohibitively expensive. The website you linked is a supplier page for the kits needed to perform the test. You would still need to find someone that has the necessary machine and is willing to run your samples. Then someone to handle the data and interpret the results. And for what? You have no idea what you're looking for and chances are, it's not going to come back with anything useful. Speak to your doctor. Be insistent that they help you figure it out. Spending thousands upon thousands of dollars on genome sequencing is a waste of both your time and your money.

There are plenty of ways to do this. Is this for homework?

! Moderator Note Please be aware that this is a discussion forum, not a place for you to advertise your website. I have removed the link and will be closing this thread shortly. If you wish to discuss the topic listed in the thread title, please open a new thread and detail your points / questions in the OP.

! Moderator Note I think I speak on behalf of all staff when I say that I am sick to death of having to remind you of the forum rules. One seriously has to ask if you are trolling at this point? In any case, since you refuse to stay on topic here and since this thread has devolved into a round of he said she said, this is closed.

1p would be a better bet.

I also made some pretty graphs! Helps make it a bit clearer. Edit: I'm away from where I made the data tables, but the 2p data point on the second graph was entered incorrectly. It should be a little higher than it was in 2008/2009.

I found some annual reports from the Royal Mint. They indicated that there was an exceptionally high demand for 1p, 2p an 5p in 2000 and 2001 and subsequently, record rates of issue. (http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/annual-report)

Edit: I tried to find data on how many of each coin are made by year. Not so easy to find. I did however find out that the 1p coin was introduced in 1971. I imagine they made a lot in that first year and that may be why you see so many. The 5p in its current size was introduced in 1990, hence why you see none of them prior to that date. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coins_of_the_pound_sterling#Post_1982)

I have small insight into your second question. I noticed a similar thing with $2 coins here in Australia when I first started going to high school and had to catch the bus every morning. Almost every morning without fail, the $2 coin I had to pay the driver with was minted in 1988, which is the year I was born (and probably why I noticed the trend in the first place). I wondered why this was and discovered that 1988 was the first year the $2 coin was minted and in the initial run they made 160 or so million. In subsequent years, they didn't mint nearly so many and statistically speaking, I was more likely to get $2 coins from 1988 than from any other year. I don't see nearly as many now and I suppose this is because many have probably been taken out of circulation due to damage (these are called mutes), are lost, melted, taken overseas or are hiding in collections. There have also been a lot more of them minted in the last 10 years. Your question about silver coins may not have anything to do with counterfeit or heavy regulation. People are less likely to stop and pick up dropped / lost silvers than they are gold coins, so the rate of attrition would likely be much higher. Over time, those losses would accumulate. I'm sure your mint would have data on how many coins they make in a given year. Australia's mint certainly does.

philipishin has been permanently banned after a long stint in the mod queue failed to resolve the issue of his making no sense whatsoever

We have better access to suppliers, so common things are generally purchased. Fine chemicals can be purchased, but many can be made and purified. I myself also have access to a lot of expensive equipment for purification if needed.

! Moderator Note To add an official note to Phi's post above: puppypower, your soap boxing will not be tolerated here. If you wish to preach, do so on a blog.

HCl will definitely get the steel into solution, but you won't technically be dissolving it. The HCl will react with it and turn the metals into metal chlorides. What visual affect are you after here / how are you planning to use it? Reacting something in this way is not the same as turning it into a liquid (that's melting; note, this is also not the same as dissolving) and you may be disappointed to find that your resulting does not have the colour or luster you are after.

Rather than looking up how KCl affects smooth muscle, I would suggest only searching for potassium ions.

Here we go. In the first example, the nitrogen formally "loses" an electron when it bonds to the carbon in bromoethane In a two electron covalent bond, we generally say that each atom "owns" one electron each. Accordingly, when the neutral nitrogen uses its lone pair of electrons to attack the carbon and form a bond, one of the electrons will still belong to the nitrogen, but the other to the carbon that it's bonded to. The loss of the single electron makes the nitrogen positively charged. The Br- ions will then be attracted to this charge and you end up with the salt, as shown. Compare that to your other example. The alkoxide has a negatively charged oxygen. It attacks in a similar way to the first example and just as the nitrogen formally loses an electron, so does the oxygen. The difference is that it started out negatively charged and so the formal loss of an electron makes it neutral - no need for a counter ion. The bromide will still form a salt, just not with your compound (the alkoxide would have been present as a metal salt, so the Br- will probably make a salt with whatever that metal is after the alkoxide reacts).

You'd know because there are four bonds going to the N. The three methyl groups and the ethyl group. The formal charge on that nitrogen is then +1. The Br isn't retained in the same way as it is in the original structure. It is no longer covalently bonded to the ethane, it's ionically bonded to the positive nitrogen. You could draw your product without the Br-; so long as you remembered the positive charge on the nitrogen, it is still correct. The reason that you don't see any Br- in your other example is that you aren't making a salt and it's therefore not needed as a counter ion. When I get home, I'll draw out what I am talking about. Hopefully that will make it clearer.

Does it offer an explanation? Could you post the question as it appears in the book? I would have picked the iodo compound as well.

They're diastereomers. Enantiomers are if all the stereocentres have changed and in this case, you're only affecting 1/2.

The product you have written is almost correct, but remember that you have made a quaternary nitrogen. A nitrogen with four bonds has a positive charge, so it becomes a salt. The Br- they include is the counter ion to that positive charge.

Perhaps scapegoat was too powerful a term. I think we basically agree on this aspect as well. MigL, I'll respond to your comment in more depth when I have a few moments. Generally, I think you're missing my point. I am aware that many of the groups in Africa are based in Islamic extremism. Many are not. In any case, it's besides what I was trying to get at. I also don't really get why you are bringing up that some people joining ISIS are well off. Of course that's the case, but they didn't form their base with these people and I doubt the majority of their new recruits are affluent either.

I have to disagree here. Firstly, you can hardly compare modern examples of colonialism to those of mid-last century or earlier in this context. The access to technology and avenues to recruit are both vastly different and the ability for these terrorist cells to grow and mobilise is huge as a result. Secondly, you mentioned the example of Africa. There are a number of reasons that this doesn't fit your argument, the first and most obvious one being that there are plenty of terrorist groups very active in Africa and from Africa.

Emphasis mine. I think this is an important distinction. Religion seems much more of a scapegoat than a root cause of anything. IMO, these groups a product of mass disenfranchisement of swathes of people in the Middle East following Western involvement. If you've read anything on the sheer level of mismanagement and idiocy that went on during the initial years of the Iraq war, the rise of these terrorist cells, and ISIS in particular, was practically inevitable and had nothing to do with Islam. You also don't need to go back to the Crusades to find examples of horrible things supposedly done in the name of Christianity, either. Africa has plenty and they are ongoing. The Anti-balaka and their ethnic cleansing of Muslim people from Central African Republic are one such example. Again though, I would argue that it had little to do with the religions themselves. It's easy to convince people who are desperate or poor or both that the reasons for their misfortunes are because of the other. It's also about as easy for others to prey on that desperation and inspire hatred and anger. People do horrible things in the name of alsorts of groups, be they religious or otherwise. That is not to say that the groups themselves are responsible. It would be a great disservice to the majority of people in those groups to take the actions of a minority of them and say that they are the actions of the whole. They are not. You say that you do not want to call all Muslims the enemy, but then what are you trying to say? There are 1.57 billion Muslims in the world. How many of those do you think are terrorists? I doubt it's over 785 million. In which case, why should a group of assholes who do horrendous things get to say what Islam is about when they represent what is likely a very small proportion of people who claim to adhere to the religion?

I did a little Googling, as I found the paragraph you posted to be odd and it made very little sense to me. I came across this video: It seems they are referring to specific as involving strong acids or bases, where there is full dissociation prior to the rate determining step, and general as involving weak acids or bases, where proton transfer occurs during the RDS. Way to use standard terminology, biochemistry! Also, there are other types of acids and bases not covered by this definition. Specifically, Lewis acids and bases. They are not referencing these, however.