hypervalent_iodine

There are some proteins in the dough that end up cross linked and deformed to give gluten. This gives an overview of what I am talking about. Quite right! I looked it up because there doesn't seem to be any reason why it wouldn't work. Turns out, it is a thing and that thing is called quick bread.

Do you know how stable congo red is to higher temperatures? It could be that it is decomposing, though I am not 100% sure on that (it seems like it should be fairly stable at those temperatures). Were you using something to create a standard curve? Perhaps try and look at how your standards change in absorbance with temperature if so.

I had thought kneading was more about making gluten and making the dough elastic than anything else. The elasticity causes the gas created by the yeast to be trapped in the dough, but it also creates something that's a bit more workable if you're rolling it out or shaping it. IIRC, the requirement to knock down dough and knead it a second time after proving it is so that you don't get huge air bubbles in the finished product. I have no experience in freezing dough (I usually make it as I need/knead it) and my method seems even less precise than Acme's. I use lukewarm water with a bit of honey or sugar to start it off and leave it for a little bit before continuing. I don't worry about the temperatures of everything else, though I live in a subtropical part of Australia and cold temperatures aren't really a problem (ever). Humidity on the other hand... In addition to Acme's comment about baking powder / soda, I would also add that the yeast in the dough makes it taste good (IMO).

I had a look at this when it was posted and couldn't make heads or tails of it either! I might sit down and have a better look when I have time.

John, I think what rktpro is saying is that you don't even need to take it as far as the fourth rule outlined in your initial post. The pi electrons are not fully delocalised around the ring system, so you don't even need to consider how many electrons are in it. Simply stating that it has 8 pi electrons and therefore does not satisfy Hückel's rule implies that it is antiaromatic, since Hückel's rule doesn't apply to compounds that don't contain conjugation around the ring. Kind if a semantic issue I guess, but I think that's where rktpro's comments stem from.

Ah, I missed the edit by snippet. Good spotting!

I had a look through all the topics you posted in Science News and none of them were hidden or closed or had any mod notes in them. You sure it wasn't somewhere else? All of your posts there that I could see were fine. You attributed the quoted bits of the article and from what I could see, all of the articles were available free of charge

! Moderator Note overtone, This habit of ignoring requests for evidence and support for your claims stops now. I refer you to the many modnotes issued to you in the past addressing the same topic. Staff are getting a little tired of constantly having to say this to you and please be aware that suspension will result if you keep it up.

Your temperature units need to be in Kelvin and you volume in litres. Otherwise correct. Edit: I didn't see you'd converted both to mL. That part should work out since you changed both, but you should get in the habit of keeping it in L.

The bolded part is kind of the point of atheism, though. We don't know where the universe came from, but it has provded us with some clues and through science we can eventually get a better of the full story. Our lack of a complete understanding is no reason to then say, 'therefore God,' or even, 'maybe God,' however. There is zero evidence to support the existence of such an entity and there is no logical reason to go through life assuming that there is or that there might be just because we can't disprove it. If such evidence did exist, it would be a different story.

A molar mass of 0.0128 doesn't make sense. Hydrogen, the smallest element in the periodic table, has a MW of 2 g/mol (counting for the fact that it's diatomic in it's elemental state). The formula you've used to calculate that looks correct, but you have gone wrong somewhere when actually trying to do that calculation. I get a different result to 0.0128, so perhaps try that part again and see what you get. The questions has asked you to identify which of the possible compounds it refers to and you seem to have identified that you need to solve for molar mass. How did you know to do that? What is it about the molar mass you've calculated that will help you to distinguish between the compounds listed?

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm mistaken here, but was the violent action taken by protestors not a response to the escalating and violent / extreme actions taken by the riot police against what was originally a very peaceful demonstration? For instance, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/30/world/europe/ukraine-eu-protests/ This was back in November when protests had really started to gain momentum, but there was no widespread violence by the protestors at that time (that I am aware of). There were also reports of police / armed government forces taking some of the protestors and beating them for no reason. One person I heard of, who was a key figure in the protest movement and whose name I forget, ending up fleeing the Ukraine altogether for fear of his life after such an event. And this was before violence really erupted. Do these people not have a right to peacefully demonstrate and speak up for legitimate concerns about the running of their country? And what exactly do you do when the government's response to that peaceful (and IMO, perfectly warranted) act is violence and aggression? Do you let them win because they're the government? That doesn't sound like democracy to me.

What John Cuthber said. You are not going to get that down a GC column, so please don't go and destroy one by trying. Have you thought of using LC-MS?

! Moderator Note s1eep, You do not get to ignore the evidence that others have presented to you because you don't like it. Stop soapboxing, stop trolling and start participating in this thread.

! Moderator Note In fact, Strange's response was somewhat of a reminder of the rules (specifically, these ones regarding evidence) that you agreed to upon signing up for this forum. Please answer his questions or you will face closure of this thread.

We have a one thread per topic rule and really, you'd likely get the same people responding anyway.

Are you sure it equals -5? I worked it out manually and came to the same answer as your calculator and substituting -5 in for x gives 2 = -16.67 which obviously is incorrect.

The compound as written doesn't satisfy the conditions for aromaticity, so I would tend to agree with you. Regardless of that however, it wouldn't just form an anion; it would have to form a cation at position 2 also and it doesn't seem like it would be a particularly stable one. I'm not convinced that the added stability of the aromatic component would be enough to offset the instability of having two charges floating around like that I would question how spontaneous such a process would be anyway.

! Moderator Note Nope. I'm closing this pending review.

! Moderator Note Mike Smith Cosmos, Please do not hijack threads with your own hypotheses. If you wish to discuss your own ideas, you are welcome to start your own thread (if you do not already have one). I have split your post and the reply into the trash.

! Moderator Note See here.

! Moderator Note llamapajama, Welcome to the forum. When you signed up, you agreed to abide by a set of rules (see here). The comment in bold is not acceptable (see rule 1) and we ask that you keep such commentary to yourself. Please do not respond to this modnote in-thread.

Please. Vegemite is where it's at.

This thread? The thread was somewhat (very) frustrating towards the end, but covered a lot of good info in the first few pages. Edit: Link should be okay now.

So, I'm not wading through the comments section of an article to try and find something that looks like it might be correct. I enjoy my sanity. EdEarl, I am happy to concede that vegan diets can be healthier than a great many other diets if appropriately supplemented, though that is not really the point or the problem with your OP. The article that your link reference does not make the suggestion that one should not eat meat, just that you should do so in moderation. In fact, the main point of the paper was to do with protein intake, be it from meat or plants. They made the conclusion that if you consume lots of protein and if most of that protein is meat based, then the association between intake and cancer prevalence is increased further still, but high protein intake (at least almost double the RDI from what I could make out) from mostly plant sources still shows the same type of association. The title of this thread is therefore completely unwarranted and frankly, nonsense. Smoking cigarettes has obvious health implications and no real health benefits, regardless of whether you smoke a little or in excess. Eating meat in large excess is not good for you, but eating it in moderation as part of a balanced diet is. In addition, the rates of lung cancer in people who smoke vs. people who never smoke is incredibly high - something in the range of 20 - 25 times. It’s certainly much higher than the difference between high and low protein intake outlined in the paper.