budullewraagh

should be easy to make with KMnO4+MeOH

thats what he was saying. benzoic acid is an organic acid. potassium perchlorate is the oxidizer. pure organic acids (eg: benzoic acid)+oxidizers (ie, KClO4) arent very stable

ah yes, iodine will oxidize the sulfite. it had appeared that he was asking if water alone would convert SO2 to sulfate

SO2 can form H2SO3, but won't form H2SO4. if you use hydrogen peroxide in the solution, the oxidation to sulfate will occur.

when did you say that nobody disagrees with the points of view discussed in my above post?

too bad the definition provided by the poster is inaccurate. i was pointing out this fallacy. i also did address the issues at hand in ways that are not exclusive to another topic. do you have comments?

"I don't think anyone is really disputing that terrorism is literally valid, in the sense that it is effective and "fits within the definition of war". The question is whether it carries moral/ethical validity, as an option in wartime." the topic of this thread is "is 'terrorism' a valid war tactic?" i was responding to that question. it does not matter whether terrorism carries ethical and/or moral validity because ethics and morals vary from person to person. as well, ethics and morals alone are not what drives one to make decisions in life. one who commits a terrorist act may not have the same ethics/morals as anyone else. there is no moral "right" and moral "wrong." there are differences in opinion. one who commits terrorist acts does not necessarily justify these actions ethically and/or morally. however, this person can see the marginal benefits involved in any particular terrorist act and may use these benefits as justification for his/her actions. i would also like to clear up something else: "Terrorism is the deliberate targetting of civillians with the purpose of disrupting their lives and cowing them. Warfare is the targetting of military objectives with the aim of destroying the enemies ability to wage war." sorry, but i cannot accept these definitions. it seems that you have considered your own ideals and molded these definitions to fit your argument. according to merriam-webster's dictionary: warfare: "1 : military operations between enemies : HOSTILITIES, WAR; also : an activity undertaken by a political unit (as a nation) to weaken or destroy another <economic warfare>" AND "2 : struggle between competing entities : CONFLICT" in this day and age, we have taken a more broad view of warfare than that seen in the first part of the first definition. we have a war on drugs, a war on hunger, a war on aids, a war on poverty, and a war on just about everything we don't like. except homelessness, but that's because there is no money in it. we can see that warfare can be waged militarily AND economically. terrorism includes, but is not limited to military operations that prompt military response. we can say that in this sense, terrorism involves military operations between enemies. we can also say that with terrorism, political leaders (osama bin laden for example) take action to weaken/destroy other political leaders. the pentagon was attacked on september 11th, 2001. also, he weakened the image of the US in the world. politically, the US suffered losses. by the second definition, warfare is much more broadly defined. struggle between competing entities? i already mentioned this, but i reiterate: terrorism includes, but is not limited to military operations that prompt military response. conflict. a crucial point is that it does not matter who is targeted: military targets, civilians, whomever. regardless of who is targeted, the targets are meaningful to the government that is supposed to defend them. thus, the loss of these targets, regardless of their status, is a loss to their government. terrorism: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" terrorism-->terror as means of coercion. but what is terror? terror: "1 : a state of intense fear" AND "4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands" a state of intense fear? so terrorism is: "the systematic use of bringing about a state of intense fear especially as a means of coercion." this includes bombing people. interestingly, one could very easily extrapolate that the US is far more guilty of terrorism than any other group. consider every war in history. even the "cleanest" wars have fit within the definitional confines of "terror"-ish wars. forces meet. one side wants a piece of land. the other side wants that same piece of land. violence ensues. one side cripples the other side militarily. the government of the losing side is afraid that its nation will be ravaged, its citizens raped, its villages burned and its coffers plundered. even if the opposing army is composed of a bunch of really nice guys who wouldn't do that. the government of the losing army is thus intimidated into granting the demands of the winning government (ie, recognizing the control of the victors over certain territories) thus, all war is terrorism. therefore, all terrorist acts are valid as war tactics. so fancy that.

terrorism is a valid war tactic. it harms people. it scares people. it fits well within the confines of the definition of war

it's actually 10^18 times stronger

the H2SO4 is used to protonate the methanol. the borate then does a nucleophilic attack to displace the water molecule. the H2SO4 also acts as a dessicant, which helps push the reaction forward as products are eliminated

hey, i'm only quoting professor garry procter. he explained that this is why CsOH is used in solid phase peptide synthesis. if you have any questions, you can email him. pm me for his email address

woelen, Cs actually does dissociate more than the other alkali metals. consider CsOH vs NaOH. the Cs S orbital is huge, so it doesn't overlap well

just giving a few things for him to google. do some searches on anti-markownikoff hydration of olefins

just use the alkyl halides for esterification for your n-alcohols, take the alkene and do anti-markownikoff addition via hydroboration and oxidation.

i hear your last line. could you address my last post (#27)?

actually, the strongest base possible would be the best electron donor, ie Li metal. Li3N must be fearsome as a base as well. of course LiNH2 is an immensely strong base as well

not really. any glucose derivative with a negative oxygen is about 10x the base that OH- is

or use an alkyl halide and a carboxylate!

the OH group doesn't directly undergo substitution because OH- is a terrible leaving group. H2O, however, is an excellent leaving group. the OH is protonated to form ROH2+, and the Cl- displaces the H2O via nucleophilic substitution

organic chlorides are easy enough to prepare, really, so i'd choose the route with SN2, the carboxylate and the chloride

or better yet, react isoamyl bromide/chloride/iodide with acetic acid in somewhat alkaline conditions

jdurg, if you do the reaction to completion, you won't have to worry about the solubility of K in molten KCl

please read the thread. those two esters are identified in post #8

dont try it. first you have to isolate the KCl. i suggest playing around with fractional crystallization. unless you want to try pyridine as a solvent (which you really wont be able to do) you'll have to fuse the solid, then electrolyze it. use inert gases. it wont work well at all, plus you'll have chlorine gas coming out. oh, and you'll have to catch the molten K as it comes out and quickly throw it into a container of motor oil

"What would be the organic molecules with a carboxylic functional group that yields isoamyl acetate?" is the quote. he's basically asking what the acid is that reacts to form isoamyl acetate. he wasnt asking what the carboxyl group is