Mr_Mediocre

sorry forgot rest of the reference. Jonathan C. Wasse, Shusaku Hayama, Sotiris Masmanidis, Sarah L. Stebbings, and Neal T. Skipper, Journal of chemical physics, 2003, (118), 7486 http://content.aip.org/JCPSA6/v118/i16/7486_1.html

Does the book say how the Li- was formed initially? My source: Jonathan C. Wasse, Shusaku Hayama, Sotiris Masmanidis, Sarah L. Stebbings, and Neal T. Skipper, Journal of Chemical Physics, The microscopic structures of lithium–ammonia and sodium–ammonia solutions have been measured by the technique of isotopic labeling in neutron diffraction, at and above the metal–nonmetal transition that occurs in the range 2–8 mole percent metal (MPM). Substitution of *Li by 6Li has been used to obtain the lithium-centered first-order difference function at 8 MPM and 230 K. This function shows us that the lithium cations are strongly solvated by 4 ammonia molecules. Substitution of *N by 15N has then been used to probe the nitrogen-centered structure in lithium–ammonia solutions at 4, 8, and 12.5 MPM and sodium–ammonia at 12.5 MPM. These functions give us new insight into both the disruption of hydrogen bonding as alkali metal is added to ammonia, and the solvation structure of the sodium cations. The former manifests itself through a progressive loss of the hydrogen-bonded N–D peak at ~2.4 Å. The latter appears as an N–Na shoulder at ~2.5 Å, and shows us that sodium is solvated by ~5.5 ammonia molecules. In contrast to previous data for saturated (~21 MPM) metal–ammonia solutions, we do not observe intermediate-range ordering of the solvated cations at the concentrations studied here

H2SO4 <===> H+ + HSO4- <===> 2H+ SO4(2-) pKa1 pKa2 1.92 not sure ~ 4-6 I think Production of H2SO4 from what? Sorry, I don't have any references for you. CRC handbook should have the data.

Sayonara, the bible gives the earth about 4000 - 6000 years of existence. Using radioisotopes we get (scientifically) an earth age of 4 billion-odd yrs. This is a pretty fundamental point to differ on. The fossil record contains no modern day humans. If humans were around from day dot then shouldn't our fossils be peppered throughout? Especially if there was a big flood? No real mention of, say, neanderthals or cro magnons in the bible, but we seem to have stumbled on a few of them...the fossil record is alot more than a statement that something once living since died. There is an order and a progression to it, backed up with other analyses...air bubbles, MORE radio dating, etc. This would contradict the bible's view of MANY event leading to where we are today. If anything, you would have to say that for someone who wants to be loved and worshipped, sacrificed to etc, biblical God (if he exists), in crafting the earth, has done a fine job of tryng to convince us he doesn't exist. Would that make him a 'sadistic twat' too?

Do they go by any other names?

NH3 doesn't reduce neutral group one metals, it oxidizes them. It is also not going to be able to donate an electron to reduce a group 1 or group 2 cation to its native metal state. Even if it did, as soon as the neutral metal was produced it would react with the water in your ammonia solution. You'd need to do electrolysis of the salt, and in a non-protic solvent like dry acetonitrile or DMF. If you DO go down this path, be very careful and read up very well. Best of luck

Jakiri, science precludes a few things through the laws of thermodynamics. The fact that it precludes very little only adds to its charm as a flexible philosophy, as opposed to most religious philosophies which tend to be pretty immovable on many points. Back to your point, randomc, one recruits young, new, impressionable scientists by sucking them in with the same crappy advertising campaigns that large corporations and politicians do. Think of the minds that would otherwise have been completely wasted as lawyers! Two birds with one stone! Use buzzwords like 'environmental', 'forensic', 'solar', 'extraterrestrial' (not aliens), 'laser', 'nano-', 'artificial life' and so on. Get them in early and the rest is up to the uni to keep em interested. The kiddies WANT to be told what is cool, they NEEEEED to be told what is cool

Sayonara, honestly, there was no implcation that Einstein was famous for his religious views. I've never thought this and wouldn't say it. Maybe I could have worded it a little better. In answer to your other questions: - What has evolution got to do with anything (in the sense of Christianity vs science)? Evolution, as it is understood to science, directly contradicts the bible. This is one of the MAIN sticking points in the Christianity vs science debate. - It is not representative of "science" It is part of a very solid branch of science. I can't think of any SINGLE thoery/hypothesis that could be regarded as `representative of science'. It is certainly "a" representative of science. - It does not contradict Christian scripture Yes it does. The very first page (among many others). What about the fossil record? - Any godly being worth its salt would have built it in to life anyway, unless it was a sadistic twat Not entirely sure what you're getting at here.

I think it is the other way around...group two (alkaline, not alkali) metals (not 2+ cations, but the metals) are strong reducing agents as they easily give away the two outershell s electrons. They can't do any further reducing once they are fully oxidized to 2+, which they will be if they are in solution. I'm guessing you are just working with household chemicals in your endeavours? Where are you getting you sulfate from?

If you use a good excess of vinegar then boil it all down you might get calcium acetate monohydrate precipitating upon cooling. You'll have to muck around with it a little I think, but that's half the fun

There are some classics in here! Been cracking up... Why is abbreviation such a long word? Why is phonetically not spelt so? What colour does a smurf turn when you throttle him? This one's a little crude but pretty funny. An enebriated man is thrown in the lockup overnight for being drunk and disorderly. He had just been tossed to the floor, the officer locked the door and walked away. The man looks up to see his cellmate, a seven-foot tall monster of a man, covered in tattoos, beard and BO, towering over him. "In here, we play this little game." said the goliath. "It's called 'mummies and daddies'. So who do you wanna be? The mummy? or the Daddy?". The drunkard, frightened out of his mind and not wishing to be either, replied "ahhh...look mate, I'm just really tired and need some sleep. Thanks anyway." The goliath simply repeated his initial question with more force "Who's ya gonna be? Mummy? or Daddy!?". The drunk is truly packing it now and realises that there is no way out of the situation. His suddenly much clearer brain arrived upon the lesser of the two evils and finally he announced "Well, if I have no choice, then...ahhh...I suppose...*damn* I'll have to be the Daddy." with which he started to psyche himself up for the coming ordeal. The Goliath smiled at his choice and said: "Good. Now come over here and suck mummy's d**k" hehehe....aww c'mon, there were worse ones earlier on....

....and I too long for the return of The Goodies....

i'll have to go: 1. saving private ryan 2. pulp fiction 3. dirty rotten scoundrels 4. starship troopers 5. matrix (first movie) 6. alien series 7. life of brian 8. forrest gump 9. caveman (with ringo starr) 10. dusk till dawn (first half of first movie)

ooo...didn't know this was here. Hi, I'm mediocre. I just handed in my thesis (PhD in chemistry) and stumbled on this forum while desperately looking for stuff to do. Looks like some cool threads are to be found here. I like chemistry (obviously), space, music (classical or satriani/malmsteen), sci fi, science in general and (if I'm avoiding work) lots of mindless television. Pleased to meet you all MM

I think we could still classify a scientifically understood god as a "god". http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=God I have faith in science. There are things that couldn't be imagined 50 yrs ago that are everyday hum-drum stuff for us now. We never really know what is around the corner. That's the coolest part about it. I haven't read any Dawkins even though there is a book on the shelf (the blind watchmaker). I might have a look.

Frequency vs magnitude for earthquakes follows a log scale. If you have columns of magnitude and frequency and plot the log of both variables you should get a straight line. I think it's called "following a 1/f pattern". Little ones happen lots, big ones happen rarely. oops...unless you were talking about the dynamics of a single earthquake.

Okeedoke. I'll go in order of appearance and try to be succinct. Skye, I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. Science does not preclude the existence of "a" god is a reflection on the flexibility of science. No GOOD scientist could say that a god of some sort doesn't exist because, as you pointed out, the hypothesis of the existence of a god can't be falsified. I wasn't saying that god fits into the current framework of science. We can't say for sure, though, that as we learn more the scientific process MAY give some answers. Thanks for the defence randomc, but in vigorous defence of my offending sentence: I didn't think it was too ambiguous...YOU understood it just fine.... Sayonara, I was merely pointing out that Einstein was an example of a great scientist with a religious bent. I wasn't commenting on what he was famous for. Your last three points were jokes, right? Not being nasty or anything, just checking. If you are being serious then I'll post another reply. For the record, I don't believe science has a "religious stance". If you are looking for away to please everyone, randomc, and get record numbers of students into science, then I truly wish you the best. But I don't think that science is as unattractive to god-fearing folk as you may think. I do understand where you are coming from, however. Fortunately, (as far as I know) atheism alone and of itself, is not taught in science in school or uni, as atheism (disbelief in, or denial of the existence of God or gods) is inherently unscientific. Cheers, MM

Other way around, I think. The premise upon which most christain religions rely doesn't permit this view (evolution). It starts with Adam and Eve and the rest is written. It is actually much easier for us as scientists to say that God created evolution, as science does not preclude the existence of a God. The senseless radicalism (ironically) sort of makes evolutionary sense. Consider when people were still living in small groups...a few families. The fanatically believing member(s) will be more agressive and forceful in asserting his viewpoint and would be more likely to rise to some position of power in the tribe be it chief or witchdoctor or whatever. And everyone knows the chiefs get all the chicks. Some cultures (even today) have deliberately nurtured this aspect of their genetic makeup by actively teaching, from a young age, that there are dire penalties for NOT being fanatical and aggressive about their belief system (not naming any particular culture(s)). Also, fanaticism may have been necessary in order for tribes to survive against others who were led (and bred) by aggressive fanatics. Cheers, MM

There is a magazine called `creation' or something like that, and it is basically a bunch of hardcore christians (of some denomination or other) refuting (with no references, just heresay) a stack of basic scientific hypotheses/beliefs, such as `how the eye evolved' and `the age of the earth' and many many others. In fact age of the earth is usually the most difficult to reconcile, and leads to a great divide between theologian and scientist. There is apparently a passage in the bible that says that god created the earth as an `old' earth (jeez, talk about hedging your bets!). Nearly every first year geology lecturer would have had the `pleasure' of some nutcase student jumping up in the middle of a lecture on paleontology and demanding to know why creation is not being taught instead. (Yes, I have witnessed this myself). I am not opposed to the idea of A god, just the rigorous (yet somehow divided) interpretation of a book that was written by several people a long time ago, and copied and distorted over the ages. I think that most folk live with a nice, not too deeply explored, marraige of science and religion. The people who unashamedly flaunt either one as being COMPLETELY correct, and the other a pot-pourri of lies and deceit are displaying narrow-mindedness and an unwillingness to budge from their viewpoint. As these types of voices are usually the loudest, then the perception in the enemy camps becomes one of noisy, ignorant malcontents who are too wrapped up in their own beliefs to allow room for a little flexibility. At my uni, there are two professors that I know personally who actually preach at their respective churches. One is a professor in chemistry and the other a professor in physics (head of department). Both are semiretired (in Australia, you don't usually get the `professor' title until after about 30 yrs research in your field and MANY publications, 100's), world experts in their fields and very well renowned and respected, I might add. They talk about their churches in a broad sense but are never drawn into the science religion debate. So I wouldn't say atheism is the norm, but in the general population, you may find a higher PROPORTION of atheists amongst scientists than in other professions. As far as overcoming the divide? You could become a rich man if you found a quick easy way to do that. One thing that works for me is to say to one faction Q. "So what makes you think *insert belief system* is wrong?" A. "Because it goes against *insert irreconcilable difference* that is taught by MY belief system. Q. "How do you KNOW your belief system is correct" A. (1) Because so many other people believe in it. (2) It is WRITTEN (3) It makes sense to me etc etc Q. Has religion been wrong in the past? A. Yes Q. Has science been wrong in the past? A. Yes Q. Then what makes you think that you live in such a special time that all of a sudden YOUR belief system is COMPLETELY right? A. Duh...? Q. What I'm trying to say, mate, is that you come across as pretty arrogant and ignorant when you preach SO FERVENTLY for the correctness of a restricted (or at least incomplete) belief system. It seems you know very little about *insert opposing belief system*. History has shown us that zealots are not usually remembered as great people. Einstein spoke of God often and is recognized as one of the greatest scientific minds ever spawned. A. *individual answers may vary* This usually marks the end of the conversation, unless the Answer person is so full-on about their belief system that they pretend you said nothing and keep running you round with the same ol tired back and forths. Tme for another drink then... Cheers, MM

lol...'twould appear that Atheist really got your goat up Equus . You may, however, have gotten your points across to a wider audience if they didn't have to wade through a quagmire of sarcasm and invective to reach them. With involved subjects like this one, maybe use sentences more for stating one or two points, rather than vehicles for conveying your ability to formulate witty, razor-sharp rejoinders. This way, more of us will gain more from the debate. For the record, I don't disagree with any of the scientific points you made, except perhaps the assertion that Molly Keyboard MacColley is the most formidable counteroffensive weapon in the world Cheers, MM p.s. noticed that you removed the sentence regarding Atheist `...vainly proselytizing - and breathing the air of - those in a higher pay bracket (or something to that effect)..' when you edited your original message. Too harsh?

There vapour was probably trapped gas becoming liberated first, then water vapour closer to 80 C. From your solution should have been able to isolate Ca acetate monohydrate. What strength acetic acid did you initally use?

Regarding your salt separation, it would depend greatly upon WHICH and HOW MUCH of those metals you have in solution.

Ah well learn something new everyday!

Well thats a little bizarre...I went back and worked from the value of 62g/100ml that chemfinder preaches. This works out to 1.7 mol HCl in 100ml..which is 17M HCl!! I have certainly not seen or heard of this, hell, I hadn't even heard of 12 M HCl. When we buy in Conc. from Aldrich it always comes as 10 M.

*jumping on my bonding soapbox again* Actually, SiO2 crystallizes using bonds with COVALENT character. H2O crystallizes through HYDROGEN BONDS. van der Waals are the absolute weakest type of lattice forces, and, as you say, do not form what we would consider REAL bonds (although they are sometimes termed such by molecular modelling programs, particularly in molecular mechanics forcefields such as MM2, for instance `1,4-van der waals interactions'). But you are not correct in saying that there are `just' van der waals forces acting to form the lattices in either water or SiO2. There are many types of bonds and bonding forces that co-operate to form crystals of these substances. Wherever there is an overlap of electronic orbitals, then there is SOME type of bonding going on. Simply compare the interatomic distances and the van der waals radii of the participating atoms. Hydrogen bonds are REAL. Ionic bonds are REAL. Co-ordination bonds are REAL. Resonance and non-resonance pi-bonds (double and triple), also REAL. You should really think of them as proper bonds, as they are not just van der Waals interactions. Even other supramolecular interactions such as pi-stacking and hydrophobic interactions are all significant packing forces that are not van der Waals interactions, but more electromagnetic and solvent/polarity microenvironment effects.