hypervalent_iodine

! Moderator Note I think you missed the quick part of, 'Quick Forum Questions.' I'm moving your thread to Speculations. Please be aware that there are additional rules pertaining to posts in this forum and that you will be expected to abide by them. They may be found here: http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29

Hm, I think you've missed the difference in the products. The carbon that is substituted is the same in both cases, the difference is the direction that the incoming nucleophile attacks and thus the stereochemistry of that centre, which is determined by steric influences. To the OP, given my brief explanation above, which do you think would be the case? It may help you to build a model and have a look at where the best place would be for a nucleophile to attack.

! Moderator Note Overtone, once again you apparently need reminding not to insult other members when you post here. chadn737, you almost crossed the line in this regard also, so please be more mindful in future. As well, overtone, do we really need to go over the fact that you need to cite your sources for the claims you are making?

Update! jduff is now banned.

The general form for Ksp is the same for any equilibria expression: AaBb(s) <-->aA+ + bB- Ksp = [A+]a[b-]b In your expression for Ksp for BaSO4, you appear to have squared the concentration for Ba2+ ions when you shouldn't have. It also looks like you are subtracting [sO42-] from [ba2+]? That is definitely incorrect. The concentrations should be multiplied. The second part looks correct. Nope. I have a feeling you got the equation wrong because of the way that you wrote the question, but CH3COO- is the anionic component, not COO-. When separating the ions, usually you would separate them into metal + nonmetal. You've also missed the fact that all equilibrium expressions work in terms of concentration, not number of moles. In other words, the number of moles in the 250 mL is not the same as the concentration of the solution. I didn't check the math, but at a glance your methods look correct (though it's hard to read, so I could have missed something)

Our rules strictly prohibit the use of the forum for the purposes of advertising, so the short answer to your question is no. We also don't allow you to link to commercial sites on your profile or in your signature.

! Moderator Note Nope. Your last thread was closed because it violated our clause on soap boxing / preaching and now, so is this one. Please read our forum rules, specifically sections 2.7 and 2.8. Thread closed.

...Right. I'm closing this.

! Moderator Note Sorry, but that won't fly here. For the third time, this is not a conspiracy site, it is a science discussion forum. Last chance to pony up some evidence.

! Moderator Note Okay, thread closed. I will leave this for staff review, but for the time being ADVANCE, I suggest you try and take what people have said to you here a little more seriously. You do not get to tell people to go away when they have made much more effort than you have to try and get you to understand the theories behind what you're talking about. Also, you don't get to criticise the writing style of someone else while simultaneously using 'words' such as, 'you's,' multiple times in a sentence.

! Moderator Note Threads merged. yahya515, please do not open multiple threads on the same thing.

! Moderator Note ADVANCE, Please try to engage in your thread instead of throwing a tantrum. The people posting in here have been incredibly patient in trying to explain to you in scientific terms why what you are suggesting won't work. Unfortunately, you do not seem willing to relate your ideas to science but instead to your imagination and to fiction. This won't work here. If you wish to keep this thread open, please make an attempt to discuss and learn from their points instead of waving them off or ignoring them. Finally, please stop making new threads about this. You have a number of threads that are currently open discussing one aspect or another, but they all come down to the same pet theory. This is against the rules and I will be going through and closing any other threads I believe to be replicates of this one.

It's definitely true that some people give out rep points based on the person rather than the post, but I think that this is very much the minority of people (and they are usually spotted and any obviously undeserved points reversed). For the most part, members seem to give out points based on the substance of a post, which is how it should be. This aspect of it has been brought up numerous times before, almost always by people with a bad reputation complaining about the 'unfairness' of neg rep system.

! Moderator Note This is incorrect within the context of John's comment and not exactly on topic. I suppose a general reminder to everyone here to try and stick to the original topic is needed also, which seems more or less answered to me. Petrushka, if you wish to discuss your contention further, it's probably best that you open a separate thread on it.

! Moderator Note Perhaps instead of celebrating your neg rep and musing over how you're still here (the answer to that question is because we've been very lenient with you in the hopes that you'd eventually learn from your mistakes), maybe you could take a critical look at your posts and why they draw such negative attention and work on making improvements for the future? In any case, I'm closing this thread.

! Moderator Note ADVANCE, please do not hijack other threads with your pet ideas. Keep it to its own thread in the future.

After a certain amount of time the function to change your user name goes away, for the reason the iNow mentions. Since you've been here over a year, my guess is that no, you are no longer able to. Admin can do it manually, but speaking as just one staff member, I doubt the overall consensus would be to allow it.

I haven't heard of adding the numbers up as a method of figuring this sort if thing out before. 2 and 4 are less than 3 and 5, hence you use 2,4 rather than 3,5. You are supposed to give preference to the chlorine substituents, meaning that the carbons they are bonded to need the lowest possible numbers over the carbon bonded to the methyl group.

You should, which is why your professor's answer is correct.

! Moderator Note Dekan, keep up the sexist attitude and this time we will ban you.

As a slightly related aside, somewhere that could do with some better artistic skill is whatever department or person was responsible for these: http://tocrofl.tumblr.com/ Of note is the fact that chemists seem to be particularly bad at graphical abstracts. A favorite:

! Moderator Note Mike, What you are presenting here is not science. We have given you every opportunity to provide evidence and support your ideas with specificity, but you have failed to do this at every turn. The fact that your theory is so vague and over-inclusive so as to not be falsifiable and that you think somehow the world/universe should obey your idea of common sense should be a very good indication to you that this doesn't work as a model of reality. If not, at least know that after 29 pages and close to 600 posts, it's no longer going to work here. Thread closed.

BigDye has regular dNTPs in it as well as the labelled ddNTPs at a ratio of about 100:1 or something like that. The PCR amplification product of a BDT reaction will therefore contain a mixture of your template of different sizes since the ddNTP's will incorporate randomly during the reaction, with the last bp of each chain being a fluorescently labelled ddNTP. The capillary on the sequencing platform will separate these based on sizes, with the smallest one coming out first. The machine will then detect the last bp of each chain that passes the laser and determine the identity of that base depending on the fluorescent label it has attached to it. Doing that allows it to compile the sequence of your template in the correct order, provided it isn't contaminated or botched in some other way. So yes, the ddNTP's will stop elongation, but that's kind of the point. The BD mixture is proprietary and I doubt you'll find out exactly what's in it or in what amounts unless you have a very knowledgable FAS who is bad at keeping secrets. There will obviously be some kind of DNA polymerase in there, but it's likely that it will be some sort of specially modified Taq. Not sure about the buffer either, though you may be able to get some idea of what it is by finding the MSDS that goes with it. Edit: I found this picture, which will hopefully make some more sense of it to you. the only part it doesn't explicitly mention is the fact that the polymer inside the capillary separates the various lengths of template by size, which is what allows us to determine the order in which the bases appear in (as I mentioned above). For example, in the example they show the top strand that terminates at position 1 would elute first and would be detected by the machine as being a G. The strand below that, which is one base pair larger and has the fluorescent ddNTP at the second position would then elute and the machine would recognise the terminating bp (i.e. the second bp) to be a G. This keeps on going until eventually you have a complete or near to complete picture of the sequence of your PCR product. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanger_sequencing)

! Moderator Note Mid April of 2012. Please take your private issues with this member elsewhere. They do not belong here on SFN.

! Moderator Note Let's try and keep this on topic. biscotti, this is a science forum and you are posting in the mainstream science section. As such, posts invoking religion or creationism are in appropriate. Even in our Religion forum, we do not allow preaching or the type of hit-and-run trollish post that you made. Try and keep this in mind if you plan on using SFN in the future.