hypervalent_iodine

The fact that HCl burns is largely due to it being corrossive rather than it simply being a strong acid. Weak acids (that is, acids that do not donate their protons as readily) can in some cases extremely damaging to us because although they are weak, their conjugate base is very corrossive. HF is a good example of this. On the flip side, there are examples of super strong acids that are not corrossive at all. Also, in furtherance to Fuzzwood's post, it is worth noting that pH is a log scale. A difference in 1 pH unit correlates to 10 times the amount of H+. (e.g. an acidic solution at pH 5 has 10 times as much H+ than does one at pH 6 and 100 times as much as a solution of pH 7.)

! Moderator Note temps, Please note that as we prohibit members from using this site to advertise, regardless of the cause. I have removed your link and will be closing this thread.

! Moderator Note I have closed the other two identical threads. AsianEinstein, please do not open multiple threads on the one topic.

! Moderator Note ACG, this is The Lounge, not the main part of the forum that deals with science related topics. You're welcome not to participate in this thread if you don't like it, but it doesn't violate any rules.

The acetic anhydride isn't just a solvent in this case. It's rare that it would be there as a solvent only. I would also like to echo John Cuthber's question, though. What do you need to make a schedule II controlled substance for, or is it really as obvious as it seems?

You know, there's a pretty damn good reason that everywhere you go with these problems, you get lectured on it. I'm all for respecting chemicals rather than fearing them, but that's no reason to take stupid risks. The fact is, mercury is toxic and you should avoid it unless you absolutely need to use it. That you had no idea what you were actually making by putting it into nitric acid should be of considerable concern to yourself. The stuff that you seem to have made is in fact quite toxic and can lead to mercury poisoning.

Look, anything where you are producing HCN is not a good idea if you are not experienced and can avoid it. Was there anything wrong with my other suggestion? How were you planning on quantifying it? Edit: what project is this for? I'd be curious to know how you planned on obtaining picric acid. Edit 2: I've realised that you didn't mention needing to quantify the CN present. My idea may be too involved, in this case. However, it would be helpful to know why you're trying to do this and what facilities you have access to?

Oh great and powerful one, No. Stop trying to reintroduce closed topics or I will be forced to add you to the mod queue, meaning that none of your posts will show up until we approve them.

Why exactly were you putting mercury in there to start with? You realise that not knowing what you're doing while playing with dangerous chemicals can lead to pretty disastrous end results? I'm not sure what the yellow stuff could be. The white crystals may be mercuric nitrate, but I would expect that to remain soluble. It is also incredibly toxic.

! Moderator Note This is not a conspiracy site. As I said in my previous note, if you're only real response to valid criticism is to call everyone a government paid shill, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously. What you were posting was not science and since this thread (and the posts I moved into it from the other thread you posted in) are opening up discussion of a closed topic, this too is closed.

! Moderator Note Could you stop with the shills nonsense. Disagreeing with you and requesting that you provide evidence means nothing more that people disagree with you and would like to see some evidence to your claims. If your response to those rather simple requests is to start name calling, then it seems pretty clear that the problem lies with you and not them. I am closing this thread pending further review, but for those of you just reading this thread that might have skipped some of the posts, please bear in mind that mercury is toxic and the ideas presented in this thread by the OP are far from scientific.

I would strongly recommend not trying to obtain cyanide if you don't know what you're doing, as this could lead to some obviously bad results for you or others. Picric acid isn't something you want to be playing around with if you're unsure if your methods, either. Why don't you try and extract and quantify the amygdalin instead? Surely that would be easier?

Okay, so you have two reactions in this to consider. The first is the reaction of the aluminium compound, which you know to consist of Al and C. The second reaction you should recognise as a combustion reaction. The products of this are CO2 and H2O. Where has the carbon and hydrogen come from in this? How do you think you can use that information to work out how much carbon (in grams and then in moles) was in the aluminium compound? The part of the question that states that one of your reagents is in excess just means that you have more of it than you need for all of the other reagent to be consumed. It is related to limiting reagents, etc., but it's not strictly relevant to answering your question.

Sorry, but we don't do people's homework for them. Do you know what a limiting reagent is? If not, I suggest you start by looking that up.

I would say that this depends very much on where you're from and what tuition / government funding you have available to you. I can't really speak for what it is like outside of Australia. I was fortunate enough to have pretty decent student loan system there for me to use, though living expenses were still quite a burden. I supported myself through much of high school and all of my degree (I moved out of home at 15 with little to no help from my family). I wouldn't have been able to survive without the student loans I mentioned and government assistance. I had a few part time jobs in high school and throughout my degree as well, since I couldn't afford to live with just government payments. When I was in third year I also started private tutoring. It meant that I got maybe a handful of weekends to myself over about 7 years, but I much preferred that to starvation. Edit: if you have an idea of what college you want attend or think you will attend, you should contact them and see if they have anyone able to give you more specific advice. I think many colleges offer this sort of thing now and it would probably be more helpful to you.

Where I am from, lab tech positions require at least a BSc. Some you can get away with by having a diploma or certificate in a relevant field, but given what the job market is like for science graduates, you would be unlikely to be competitive without a degree. Unless you already have significant work experience, that is. If by scientist you mean someone who is actively participating within the scientific community, engaging in research and publishing, I think you would find it hard to be taken seriously on your own without a degree (or even without a PhD). In theory, it is possible and certainly has been done, but the impracticality of such a endeavour would weigh quite heavily on your chances. For all the time and effort you'd have to go to prove yourself, you're probably better off going to uni.

! Moderator Note Closed, pending review. David Levy, Phi has given you some good advice, which you apparently have ignore. Please be warned that if you continue down this path, we will be forced to suspend or ban you.

You really haven't, but I will try to make myself clearer. Saying that it is a pre-made brainstorm fails as an explanation, because usually when people are brainstorming, they do so with a point or end goal in mind. Indeed, I can think of no example where that wouldn't be the case. It makes no sense to do so without a purpose in mind, which is why I asked you what it is a brainstorm for. And still, you have not even attempted my last two questions. I am especially interested in an answer to my second one.

I know you didn't. I did. You still haven't answered my questions. A reminder of my questions:

My point is that calling it that is vague and not in any way an answer to my very direct and simple questions.

I'm sorry, but that really isn't an answer. Calling it a pre-made brainstorm is just another way of saying that it's a pointless list of arbitrary things. What is it a brainstorm for? What kind of problems would a person need to have answered for them to need this list? How is this list useful?

Please see my above post. You have not answered my question.

I should also add, I am not asking you how individual items on your list are useful. I am asking you how the list itself is useful.

That's doesn't answer my question. Also, I would think that things such as fire are useful in one of those incredibly obvious ways that rather negates the need to consult a list.

I am pointing out the fact that many of the items are too general or completely irrelevant to the intended audience of this list. Yes, I picked some of the more obvious examples, but I could draw the same conclusion by pairing quite a large number of the items you've included. As far as I could see, based on your responses to John Cuthber, you are not interested in substances scientists or people from more specialised areas find intriguing. This isn't a matter of how progressive I am or am not, it is a matter of you not being able to clearly articulate how this list is to be used. You claimed earlier it would be useful to chemists. I am one and it isn't. You claimed that people get paid to calculate coefficients of friction and that they could find it useful, but clearly most of the items on that list would not be useful to them at all. I ask again then: how do you intend people to be able to decipher and employ this list? How is it useful to, well, anyone?