budullewraagh

Yeah, I apologize; the latex didn't work out for me. Actually, the integral I was looking for was available at sosmath.com; I was computing an expectation value for the radius of the He+ cation for my physical chemistry course. Thanks anyway for your help!

Does anyone know where I can find integral tables for QM? I tried a few, but they cannot be solved as indefinite integrals that give rise to noninfinite quantities. Example: [math] r=\int_{0}^{\infty} (&\X\Psi*(x))(&\X\Psi(x))*4*&\X\pi*r^2*dr [/math] <r>=(integral, 0 to infinity) (psi(x))*(psi*(x))dr Using integration by parts gives a solution that goes to infinity. Can anyone help me find some tables? Thanks, Clark

I'm trying to make gold nanoshells and had an idea, but am unsure as to whether gold would be able to undergo oxidative insertion to add between a Si-Cl bond. My idea was to take silica nanospheres, react with oxalyl or thionyl chloride to turn the hydroxyls (on the outside of the SiO2) into chlorides and then have the gold insert to form Si-Au-Cl. Furthermore I was wondering as to whether a reducing solution of HAuCl4 and NaBH4 would continue to add gold to form Si-Au-Au-Cl, Si-Au-Au-Au-Cl, etc. The most obvious problem with this is that I can't think of too many divalent gold compounds. Apparently the oxidation state exists, but is only existent in "rare complexes." The only one I know of is [AuXe4]+2 but that is unstable and at +2 already. Are there any that are either at ground state or +1? Also a possibility would be a +1 gold salt such as AuCl, but I'm not sure that it would insert well. Also, does anyone here have any thoughts on my proposal?

It should be noted that Grignards can be made by addition of magnesium to alkyl halides and that organolithium reagents can be made by addition of n-butyl Lii, sec-butyl Li and tert-butyl Li, though the latter is most applicable and most dangerous. Also, trimethylaluminum is commonly used as a catalyst for such reactions as the Weinreb amidation of esters. Also, organocuprates (Gilman reagents) are often used to favor 1,4 addition over 1,2 addition to a,b-unsaturated carbonyls and are generated in situ by reaction of the corresponding organolithium with CuI to form R2CuLi.

According to that explanation phosphines (P being less electronegative than N) would be more basic (less in control of their electrons) than the corresponding amines. Trivalent phosphorus isn't at all a hard base because its lone pair is in a far larger probability cloud than that of nitrogen. As a result, the orbitals don't align well and phosphines aren't good at deprotonating anything.

I'll vouch for the reaction of KI and H2SO4 yielding H2S. That was a botched experiment on my part, but hey, I was really young and naive. As for acid production from salts and other acids, the rule is to use acids that are stronger than the conjugate acid of the salt used. H2SO4 is both cheap and the strongest common acid, so we can make any organic or mineral acid from the reaction of it and a salt. As Woelen said, however, there are some exceptions concerning the oxidizing power of H2SO4.

I think he wanted to reduce the carbonyl not to the alcohol, but to the alkane.

I think you're thinking of thioacetal formation and reduction with Raney nickel. The thioacetal formation does require acidic conditions, however, but the reduction itself requires neutral conditions. Plus, it should be noted that the acidity required should be less than that required for Clemmenson and far less harsh than the obscenely basic conditions required for Wolff-Kishner. Carbonyl--(HSCH2CH2SH/H+)-->Thioacetal--(H2, Raney Ni)-->Alkane+Ethane+2NiS

How could it have been handled successfully? Well, frankly I would have been more in support of saving Darfur than the Iraqi people because the former really is a more dire humanitarian crisis. That said, assuming that the elimination of Saddam Hussein's government and a replacement is the goal, my idea would be to attempt to (not very actively) get the Iraqi public to rise up against the government. Look at what's happening in Iran; university students protest all the time, which is far beyond what we saw in Iraq. In order to cause successful regime change it's important to win public approval. They need to be willing to die for the cause of changing their government. The US could have helped bring them to this level of passion. Once the citizenry was to revolt, even if it took 5, 10 or 15 years, the US could have aided them by neutralizing the Iraqi army and allowing the Iraqi people to do the actual overthrowal and replacement of officials. Consider the recent coup in Thailand; not a shot was fired if I recall and it went fairly smoothly. This sort of thing was possible in Iraq, but we blew it.

Just to put things in perspective: Merck spent $1.2 billion and several years developing a drug, the name of which I have forgotten since hearing about it during an o-chem class. The drug did everything but pass as safe for the public. Many years and $1.2 billion lost means Merck has to raise prices for other things in order to stay in business. As well, there's also the problem of people rape-suing companies to death. It's for this reason that no pharmaceutical company currently is trying to make drugs specifically for the pregnant and elderly. After making out like bandits (more like trying to pull a profit) for a few years, every pharmaceutical company in existence replicates it and the prices all reduce to nothing.

I strongly agree with Woelen on this one. I remember when high school AP chem students used to try to call me out on bonding rules after I had taken organic I and II and read Pauling's Nature of the Chemical Bond. They believed in their arguments very strongly and I couldn't help but explain to them how wrong they were. Personally I think that, for example, the concepts of orbital overlap applied to simple molecules could be a very useful supplement to resonance and the inductive effect that polarizes molecules.

Encipher, it doesn't really matter. Consider the extreme lack of orbital overlap between Cs and F as well as Li and I. Who cares that there is a finite positive degree of overlap? The point is that CsF and LiI are extremely hygroscopic to the point of deliquesence. As for "covalent" bonds not being "completely" covalent, yes, this is true with many compounds that inept high school chem teachers call "covalent." However, we only really notice the "polarization" of the C-H bond in methane when running NMR with molecules that only show the inductive effect. Yes, the protons are waay upfield. Yes, the carbon is more shielded than it would be if the alkyl chain were more substituted, but what difference does it make in the chemistry of the molecule? It is at all nucleophilic? No. Electrophilic? No. Concerning the previous response you gave that such atoms as aluminum are commonly found in +3 ionic or "semi-ionic" or "very polar covalent" states, I must respectfully disagree. Trivalent (NOT ionic) aluminum is a very useful Lewis acid and such reactions as the Weinreb amidation would not proceed without this property. As well, the reduction of amides, esters, and carboxylates would not proceed if not for the fact that Al is not at all inclined to be in a cationic state. Moreover, it generally takes on a negative forma charge and in fact, its acidity can be observed by its reaction with water: 2AlCl3+3H2O-->6HCl+Al2O3

Of course they could, and I already addressed this. The worst-case scenario is seeing that there is no change and the corrupt will continue to be corrupt. Those who want to be corrupt in the present only have to hire a corrupt auditor. With my proposal in effect, they'd have to bribe a government official and then hire a corrupt auditor. This makes things at least slightly more difficult and certainly does not make it any easier to get away with corrupt bookkeeping practices. Remember that any decrease in corruption is gain and the benefits will outweigh the minimal costs of implementing my plans. It's probably that combined with the fact that the government doesn't want to take on big business.

I agree. I think it's teaching us a few things about submission and control. The main reason there is hatred to the degrees seen in the Middle East is that lots and lots of impovirshed individuals (who aren't well-off usually because of ineffective and/or oppressive governments) are very frustrated and are easily extremized by religious leaders that teach them all sorts of "good" things and in the process justify the killings of Westerners. I agree. I agree, assuming that "fixing" is just that and is well-executed. But now I have to ask you this: how does one do it?

Private enterprise should be free to do as it wishes and make and lose its money freely. On the other hand, public enterprise, being supported by funds from stockholders, should not be as much in control of their own destinies. I sound like a Marxist with that last line, don't I? Don't lose patience; this is where it gets more reasonable. Other holders of the public's monies (banks, etc) are audited by individuals chosen by the federal government. Why is it that public enterprise currently has the luxury of hiring their own auditors? CEOs that wish for improperly kept books and Enron-like endings are still able to do so, especially considering the fact that they can choose auditors that are corrupt to begin with and then bribe them. On the other hand, it would be more difficult to bribe the feds if for no other reason because CEOs have no control over who the individual is that audits any given company. Furthermore, CEOs may become less inclined to bribe if the feds are watching. At the very least there will be no progress: just the same amount of bribery and corruption that occurs today. Anything more and that's real progress. What do you think?

Actually, for the record, astatine is more rare than francium. The latter is present in quantities estimated at 340-550g at any given moment while the former is present in quantities of less than 1oz, estimated at closer to 25g. According to wikipedia, Asamov estimated that only about a trillion atoms of At are present on earth at any given time. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering the fact that 25g of At (assuming the atomic mass of At is approx 210) is approx 0.119 moles, which would be approx 7.16*10^22 molecules.

One of my former associates performed the electrolysis of fused NaOH and got a ball of molten Na metal up his nose in the process.

Well, if you take a carboxylic acid and react it with ammonia, over the span of weeks you'll get the amide. This isn't a good reaction, but it eventually goes forward as the reversible proton exchange between the ammonia and carboxylic acid sees competition with the nucleophilicity of the ammonia, which is nucleophilic towards the acid but not the carboxylate anion. This reaction won't work with alkylamines because they are too basic and the reaction is hindered by sterics. A much better way to do it is to do a Weinreb Amidation after forming a simple ester with the acid. This requires the amine, ester, and an aluminum (dimethylchloroaluminum works well) catalyst.

It should be noted that the area should be ventilated and that the user should try to avoid the SO2 fumes, which will choke those who are exposed to it.

But why use pet ether when you could use DCM?

If you add formaldehyde to beer the hydrate (methyl diol) will first be formed but, considering the fact that beer is slightly acidic, you'll probably have an equilibrium with the acetal, diethoxymethane. So, how to test? Well, that's tough considering the fact that you'll have equilibration between formaldehyde and methyl diol (heavily favoring the diol) and methyl diol and diethoxymethane, which shouldn't significantly favor one reagent over the other. I guess you could add some more acid to push the equilibrium towards diethoxymethane, then extract it (maybe with DCM? or acetone?), evaporate the solvent (it should be of a low boiling point, as the diethoxymethane boils at 87 Celsius) and distill the diethoxymethane. Just a hunch. Try it if you'd like.

I don't think it's a matter of which opponent is best; rather I think it's based on party. Call the Times partisan if you want, but I'd call them sane as well and justly partisan in this case. True, in a lame duck presidency such as this one the GOP is not as strongly pressured to block vote but we have yet to see Congressional Repiblicans break away from party lines. As a result we've seen a ton of injustices occur with the approval of Congress and in addition we have yet to see any significant investigation of a number of issues. Suspension of Habeas Corpus? Not a Democratic thing, and not likely to change until we have a Democratic Congress. Torture? Not a good thing to me, but a good thing for others. Regardless, we keep hearing lies: "the US doesn't torture," then seeing new legislation allowing us to ignore the Geneva Conventions and torture to the point of severe physical and mental damage. Pressure on Bush to actually get a plan on Iraq? Not going to happen, and actually the Dems will be quick to call for immediate withdrawal. Personally I think that (cutting our losses) is better than doing things as we are doing now. Ideally there would be a better way but I have no intention to wait for any brilliant ideas to come from the GOP. The Republicans in Congress are now in a 1984 situation: they wish to continue their dominance for hte sake of their dominance. They have had power and have enjoyed their stay while we have done nothing to stop them. Now they are shamelessly trying to save their skins, using Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri as their spokesmen, reaching audiences the terrorists only wished they could reach with ads like this: http://www.gop.com/Multimedia/MediaPlayer.aspx?ID=1136&TypeID=2 As if they have any credentials in the "war on terror." A week ago 9/11 came back to the families of 80 dead found underground at the former World Trade Center. The GOP thinks it and only it can lead the US to victory over terror? Terror is what they use to get elected! We think that Bush is going to win the war on terror? He can't even recover our dead from the battlefield! The bottom line: being a "nonpartisan" and "moderate" is not to be confused as always being "rational," "fair," "intellectual," or "reasonable."

I really don't see what's wrong with the Times' lack of endorsing a single Republican.

to doctors orgo itself isn't particularly useful. however, the class itself is extremely useful to admissions officers as well as students. after taking orgo, premeds will know what will be required of them, time and commitment-wise. admissions officers will also get a good glimpse at the potential and abilities of an orgo student.

Orgo is extremely important, not to doctors, but to pharmaceutical companies. Yes, it's really, really rare that a new and useful type of reaction mechanism is developed, but every day new biologically active molecules are synthesized in the lab. Currently I'm working on an anti-pancreatic cancer molecule. Think it's useless? Wait a few years and see what new molecules we come up with.