hypervalent_iodine

I actually think that the only time I ever started getting neg rep was after I became a moderator. They are pretty much always by people upset by being suspended or having a received a warning and they eventually get reversed by someone.

Soft drinks contain a lot of sugar. It's nothing particularly special or surprising and nothing you couldn't have figured out by reading the nutritional info. Perhaps you could try summarize what you are finding so surprising in this or what questions you might have about it? I'll admit that I didn't watch the video, but I have an idea of the crux of it from others who have posted it.

1. It definitely is not correct. Google is your friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tissue_(biology) http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/tissue http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Tissue And something you desperately need to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology 2. Scientists do say, "we don't know," all the time. They especially say it in relation to DNA and genetics in general. If we did know it all or even claim to, then it would hardly be the active area of research it is, would it? Edit: you might also want to look up what Junk DNA actually is while you're busy reading.

With you here, though with the added caveat that Australia sometimes qualifies for the WC and when they do, it's all you ever hear about on the news. In New Zealand, where I originate from, it wouldn't even get a look in. If for no other reason then because it's in the middle of the Bledisloe, Tri-nations, Super 15 qualifiers and international test match end of rugby season and if there's one thing you'll never see in NZ, it's another sporting event getting in the way of rugby.

Again, you are misuing the term tissue. DNA is responsible for the synthesis of tissue somewhat indirectly, which is to say that the proteins they actually code for (in addition to other pieces) are what build and make up the cells that comprise a given tissue. My point was that tissue is a term used to describe a given cell type and I think it is a mistake to say that "DNA codes for tissue", particularly since: a.). Tissues are built up of things that DNA doesn't code for at all, but which come from the environment or that are synthesised by the proteins it does code for from things obtained through diet, etc. And, b.) DNA codes for genes that do other things besides make up the structural components of a cell (let alone a piece of tissue). Transcription factors, for instance. I think you are confusing laymen with actual scientists, here. As I said, we can (through the power of good experimental design and statistics) make associations between genes and mutations and certain phenotypes without knowing the physical mechanism that links the two together. No credible scientist would ever say that we know everything about how DNA works and no scientist would be able to tell you what every single gene did in order to create a certain line of tissue.

I think you are misusing the word, 'tissue.' My understanding is that tissue is used to describe a set of cells of one particular type (muscle, liver, etc.). Genes code for proteins. You are probably right to question terminology such as, 'the gay gene,' etc., but I these are not phrases that scientists familiar with the area would use, IMO. You should also recognize that we are able to make associations between certain genes / mutations and various behavioural phenotypes. I don't think we have a complete picture for how exactly genes influence behaviour, but that is not the same as knowing whether or not they have an influence at all.

I haven't checked the balancing, but assuming it's correct then your calculation for volume is correct and 600mL would be the answer.

! Moderator Note Split from here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60356-cold-fusion-demonstration-definitely-a-hoax-or-merely-almost-definitely-a-hoax/ barfbag, please keep the speculations out of other threads and in this area of the forum. Please also note that the use of logical fallacy is against forum rules, so keep the appeal to authority out of it. Do not respond to this note in-thread. If you have a problem with it, please use the report feature or PM a member of staff.

My knowledge of statistics is admittedly not very good, but I think it is less the small sample size and more that you can't really draw meaningful conclusions from tests performed on a minor and inherently non-random subset of the general population. Though sample size is certainly another issue. As I mentioned, you'd be talking about prisoners on death row, since a likely outcome of medical experiments is death. Even if death sentences were brought back in all places, you would still have a tiny number of people on which to do tests.

I don't really see how that makes it any better. It certainly doesn't help to make such a study statistically valid.

Either or is fine, I think. When you are talking about something being oxidised or reduced, you are only really talking about the electron movement to and from individual elements in a molecule rather than an entire molecule. By stating that NO3- is reduced there is an implied understanding that the N is the part that's actually changing oxidation state.

No. You can't have two things being oxidised and nothing reduced in the same reaction like that. Remember that you aren't looking at the charge on the whole molecule as an indication of the oxidation state. You need to look at specifically which atom is changing in oxidation state and by how much. The charge on the whole molecule is the sum of the charges / oxidation states of everything within it, so you are able to work out the charge of an individual element by treating the whole thing algebraically. For NO3- you would write: -1 = N + 3 x O We know that O has an oxidation / charge of -2 in this case (unless it's in a peroxide or elemental form, it is -2 for oxygen), so: -1 = N + 3 x -2 -1 + 6 = N Thus, the nitrogen in NO3- has an oxidation state of +5. doing the same thing for NO2, you should come to N = +4. The change in oxidation for nitrogen is then +5 --> +4, which is a gain of 1 electron and thus it has been reduced.

ADVANCE is hereby banned for a series of abusive PM's and whatever else you can think of by me, from the depths of the hell that he claims I should live in.

! Moderator Note Here's the deal. We do and will not tolerate the use of insulting or offensive language towards members in any part of this forum. kristalris and physica, if you cannot talk to each other in a mature and reasonable manner you will both find yourself on vacation from SFN. Since you both ignored previous warnings and PM's regarding your behaviour, I have split every single one of your posts after swansont's last note into the trash and I will continue to trash every single post either one of you make should it contain any rude or offensive language. DO NOT insult the intellect or reading abilities of other members and if you could both to stop using words such as retarded to describe the arguments or personal traits of others, it would be greatly appreciated. Play nice or don't play at all. Your choice.

This is a little pedantic of me, but it is a pet peeve. The d orbitals have very little / nothing to do with hypervalent bonding. The ability for certain atoms to possess an 'expanded octet' is accounted for by applications of molecular orbital theory and the associated quantum mechanical calculations (for example, 3c-4e bonds). The competing theory of d-orbital hybridisation is a nice and easy to understand concept for undergrads (and honestly, the distinction is probably not going to be relevant to anyone except for the poor souls such as myself who go on to do research involving hypervalent compounds), but it has been outdated since about the 90's or earlier.

No, you definitely don't ignore it. I was saying that you have to use concentration of the solution, not the number of moles. You can calculate the concentration given the volume (in L) and the number of moles, which you have.

Could you please stop derailing the thread?

Also definitely not. Na+ =/= Na . Please look up what enthalpy is and unofficially, could people please stop posting complete bunk in response to this thread? Keep the speculations in the appropriate section.

Er, no. Have you ever seen sodium hit water before? It's pretty exothermic. Perhaps you should avoid answering questions if you're unsure of them yourself. OP: Do you require numerical answers for delta H or something? You haven't provided enough information to do that, if so. Some clarification on the exact question and the information you are given would be helpful here.

Is there any reason you can't capture it and sell it? It has commercial value so there's no need to throw it away if you don't have to.

! Moderator Note We don't allow members to post threads regarding the synthesis of drugs and I am I'm closing this thread as a result. However, before I do, it is very worth noting that chemistry is not something you can mess around with in your garage if you have absolutely no idea what you are doing. It is extremely unsafe and you run the risk of hurting yourself and others. Your knowledge of chemistry is obviously very lacking and as such, I would ask that you please do not try to do this.

This is true, though there is a relatively large cohort of people who just don't know any better and are easily swayed by anti-vaccine arguments when they are not also presented with intelligent counter-points. I personally know of one or two families who fell for the anti-vaccine lines and didn't vaccinate their eldest children until much later, when after their 3rd child they actually did some reading and realised that it was all bogus. The publicity that this particular study has attracted is beneficial to those sorts of people if not to those who already have a firm opinion on the matter.

And why exactly would you want to do that? Edit: Also, it depends not only on the compound what specifically you are trying to make (in other words, where and within the context of what functional group(s) you are trying to add a C and O).

Hexanone indicates an alkane carbon chain with a C=O, so using that same relationship what would you expect the same compound with an alkene group be called? You also need to specify the position of the ene group with a number (as in for example, cyclopent-1-ene). As for the first part, RMgLi is still not a Grignard reagent. At all. Look up organolithium reagents and what they are used for.

Your method seems fine to me. Could you give a specific example of question that you've done?