Suxamethonium

Generally diarrhea is caused when water is not well absorbed from the GI. In the case you put forward the mechanism by which that happens is due to vaso-constriction, however perhaps in septic shock this same result is caused by another mechanism? Also, mass vasodilation would cause hypotension and still lead to decreased oxygen availability.

Ok, so this probably should have been put in homework? But to help you out a bit think about these questions: 1) What are the functional groups of an alcohol, acid and ester? What do they look like? Which is most polar, which is least polar? Is water polar or non-polar? Following the principle "like dissolves like" which functional groups should be most soluble in water? 2) What do you know about esters that might be related to flowers? To be fair, I feel this question is vague and will depend on what was told to you in class. 3) In regards to the rain, think about question 1. You should also think about why COOL was specified (hint: it is not as required for large esters like cooking oil). As for the skin part- think about water and sunblock (oily kind) what happens when you try to rub them on your skin and how might this concept apply to esters? Have a think, and post up your results and I'll help you more if you need it.

No, because it will still be able to cross the BBB and enter the periphery anyway. It also needs to be metabolised and excreted which happens outside of the CNS. The reason neurotransmitters would have less side effects would be because they are the reason why these drugs have their therapeutic effects- so you are effectively inducing the alert state without the added effects of the non-endogenous drug. Of coarse you will still probably get significant side effects- but such side effects will be associated with the bodily state and could be regarded as unavoidable or having limited possibility to reduce.

NaCN is unlikely to be found in a high school lab these days (at least in Australia). However for hydrogen cyanide could add concentrated acid to potassium ferrocyanide.

Note- In case this is not so hypothetical, it is important to consult a physician before intentionally taking anything for a therapeutic purpose. Many drugs will interact negatively with other compounds/events (drugs, foods, supplements, medical conditions, etc) inducing sickness or death e.g. ACE inhibitors can cause kidney failure when taken with NSAIDs such as ibuprofen or cause hyperkalemia when taken with potassium supplements (both OTC products). This should not be interpreted as advice, just some information. Like all drugs, everything varies from person to person. However there are various compounds that achieve the same kind of effects as caffeine (in regards to alertness/stimulant effects). Most of them are restricted substances. A couple of examples are: Methylphenidate (ritalin) and other similar substances. Other xanthines like theophyllin or other adenosine receptor antagonists. Drugs that behave like neurotransmitters - such as nicotine. The "best" would be a weigh up of therapeutic effect vs adverse effects. If you come across a drug with none of the side-effects you mentioned, it is going to have some you didn't mention- however the severity of any side-effects can usually be controlled by dosage. For the point of theory: you could argue that administration of endogenous neurotransmitters into the CNS would have the least (drug related) side effects- in theory the only side effects should be that of what the body would experience in a potential naturally occurring over-alert state.

... until everyone has the "same" children....

I would say no- anti viral agents basically work to block the processes in cells responsible for replicating the viral genetic sequence. Protease inhibitors for example target special proteins that the virus makes the living cell produce. The purpose of these proteins is to cleave other proteins responsible for synthesis of new virions which spread the infection to other cells. As such the virus is stopped from reproduction. I cannot see a means for sulphur to act in such ways other than maybe killing infected organisms- a virus cannot reproduce without a host.

By ear hairs Im guessing not the ones we hear with But both ear (and particularly nose) hairs are used as filters so we don't get dirt and stuff in them. Funnily enough, that is the job of ear wax and mucous as well- so I would say they are important. I'ld say the belly button is a bit defunct tho.

I don't know the answer, but on the chance of being a helpful start- some proteins bind to metals such as zinc (usually through cysteine and histidine residues), copper and iron as part of their normal function, perhaps this is a place to start looking in regards to your question until someone else can suggest something more useful. I think such proteins are called 'metalloproteins' if you want to look them up. Obviously the metal binding here is required for the enzymes function, however my point was maybe lead participates in similar bonding disrupting some proteins from their function. Best of luck.

I agree, he said how HE makes it allegedly. But I asked how IT makes it as a process- the process behind something allows assessment to how it works, how it could be improved and how it can be applied. For example (basics of a solar cell), saying "I put some phosphorous in some silicon and it makes electricity in the sun". It doesn't tell me exactly how it makes electricity, it is only claiming that it makes it in some unknown way. It's not suggesting any meaningful evidence that what it is doing is feasible or potential improvements in design/properties. Also, he says he uses pure water (not electrolytic solution)- so its not exactly a battery. And this is why I specifically asked how it works because it cannot be a typical galvanic reaction based on his criteria. As for the patent issue, if you can make it original in some way then it can be patented for a specific use. Patenting is an art, a good patenter could probably find an abstract way to patent your socks if you asked them to. However, as I was implying- this idea would likely be too bulky to market for any feasible applications- but they probably said that about the original voltaic pile itself.

Could it not just be that your brain didn't decide who the person was until it decided to make the person identifiable? If that makes sense. Basically, I'm changing the premise. You're looking back on this interpreting it so it makes sense- but maybe at the time you dreamed it didn't need to make sense. The person was covered, but when it came to uncovering, your brain inserted a known person rather than taking the effort to fabricate a new person. You look back on this as the stranger being your daughter the whole time, playing a practical joke. In reality it was probably just your brain not knowing who it should be and not caring until it came up, where it then substituted in your daughter because you are very familiar with what she looks like. Obviously this is conjecture, but when dealing with dreams how can it not be?

An actual explanation would be nice too. "I put copper and magnesium in some water" really doesn't so much as hint at how this produces an electric current. Also, 3 LEDs will happily run dimly off a 2v supply of about 40-70mA (0.1W). So thats about 1 or 2 volts per cell at 40 or 20mA (depending on how you connected them). It's going to take a lot of cells to power my laptop (19V, 5A, 100W) let alone my electric stove (240V, 15A, 3.6KW) or a commercial stove (3 Phase 400V, 32A, approx 24KW- if my calculation is correct). I guess my point here, is once you can explain the mechanics of it, how do you plan to make this more viable for investors. Even if someone is making a donation and not expecting a return, most are only going to donate to a feasible solution over an impractical one.

Statistics was my worst subject- but I believe you need to perform a statistical test (For example a t-test) in order to prove or disprove the null hypothesis mathematically i.e. you can't just assume there is no correlation because it makes sense, you need to prove it using a statistical test with a P value. Apart from that though I'm not much help.

Just going to guess here- but I would say about 0 tonnes of CO2 released annually (where would it come from?). And if you find out its efficiency (i.e. what is not being converted to heat, sound, etc) and its electrical power output, then the total energy taken from the wind should be calculated as (electrical energy + lost energy) - otherwise this thing is making energy from nothing.

It's an undergraduate course. I would expect it is more important to be able to show you developed an understanding of whatever you did rather than if an employer found it interesting or not. Also, the OP said they didn't get the grant. They didn't say why they didn't get the grant- last time I checked a grant is not based on what you find 'boring'. If it is at all related I would speculate it to be because of the 'I find it boring' attitude of the OP. As for a resume- it is a resume. If you were to give me a resume and then describe whats on it as boring and insipid then I wouldn't hire you- but if you presented briefly what you did, what you learnt and most importantly how you applied what you learnt then it wouldn't matter what the project was because you have the qualities I'm looking for in an employer. Also, someone who leaves because something is boring may backfire, because for all you know your employer is going to give you boring work that they want you to do reliably. If you want to change, then change- it is up to you, but if it means an extra year- then why bother? It's not like this is a PhD.

So really simply wind is where air moves in laterally to replace the hot air that has risen vertically. The net pump for this is heat radiated by the earth (for example a road surface heated all day by the sun). So if I was to place a whole lot of wind turbines in an area and it did slow the wind significantly, wouldn't it just create more significant air currents above the turbines and also from other directions. As a result it would not effect the global system, but only the surface system (i.e. the altitude of the wind turbines). The hot air is still going to rise, and unless you propose a spontaneous vacuum, new air is going to replace it. Also, the only reason fans are more favoured in computers is because redesigning the whole system to cool passively has no real gain (other than super quiet operation which is still effected by mechanical hdd and such). Fans used to be used in a lot of moving lights, but by redesigning the electronics in physical space they now mostly cool passively (theatrics and TV don't want noisy fixtures) or as a combination of fan and passive.

Do you have access to a spectrophotometer? Perhaps you could set up a copper sulfate solution bath with a pure copper electrode and your iron/copper electrode. Test the solutions absorbance over reaction time. If the blue starts to disappear then iron is starting to dissolve from the electrode and you should take it out. Alternatively you could try 'etching' the copper off using hot ferric chloride or ammonium persulfate. It would probably attack the iron, but if you checked it regularly you would be ok.

You would be best to talk to your subject coordinator or a faculty member. This is not really a question we can answer for you, it is a decision which you must decide to make or not. Best of luck with whatever you decide

This is probably a stupid question.. but how does an eraser dry out? (If you mean the cracking seen in erasers, particularly at the ends of pencils, I thought it was just UV/light degradation of the rubber polymer). From http://www.madehow.com/Volume-5/Eraser.html An eraser is mostly rubber (synthetic or latex), with a few extra excipients for things like colour/flexibility etc. The rubber is vulcanised for stability- but the article implies this is not related to the erasers ability to function. This would imply non-polar interactions with the graphite. However, the article also said that bread was used effectively before the use of rubber/latex was widespread. Starch and cellulose and other polymers in bread are all very polar... Hence I still feel that it is more the mechanical 'rubbing' action that is most responsible, perhaps the non-polar interactions of synthetic/natural rubbers give it the improvement seen when comparing bread and rubber as erasers?

I think the saying probably just came about because most people wake up before they die in a dream?? Just like people will tell you that running in the rain naked or walking around with soaking wet clothes will give you a cold... Unless you were to be (somehow) monitoring someone's dreams at their time of death, it would be pretty hard to find conclusive evidence of actually dieing because you dreamt it. Also if we were to assume that one DOES die if they die in their dreams and that they have never yet died, then logically speaking they cannot know whether they died in their dream or not (as they have never experienced dieing before) unless they were to actually die or wake up. Basically I'm simply stating that you don't actually know if you were dead or not in your dream- you are just assuming you were because it best matched up with what you identify death as.

I think that as a rule, it is not necessary to share the source code- but it should be considered by the authors. The reasoning behind this is that I feel saying "We fed our data into a program we created and it said this" is insufficient regardless of whether or not you included source code. Instead, it should only be required to explain the actual processes the program performed- not how the program performed them. This way, the experiment is still repeatable under the same test processes, however the person repeating the experiment will need to develop or find their own medium (source code, calculator, etc) to carry out those processes. It also means that errors in the data caused by coding bugs/errors are more likely to be found because the same code (with the same errors) is NOT used. For example. I can perform a t-test using excel- I don't need to show the source code that tells excel how to do this. Likewise, I can repeat the experiment and calculate the t-test with a calculator by hand and still get the same "results". As long as the methodology and mechanics of it (equations/principals and assumptions) are accurately described- then I feel the source code is fairly irrelevant.

At the same time, you can erase pencil using other things- e.g. scrunched up masking tape, other pieces of paper, etc. Some work better than others. .. I think the point I was making was I don't know if it is specifically a chemical process, it might just be mechanical (with the chemical properties of the polymer designed to make it more preferable for the purpose (i.e. flexible, non-abrasive towards paper, etc).

It depends. These days medicine is generally tailored on a per patient basis. What anesthesia or analgesics are used will usually vary depending on procedure, patient intolerances and, in some things, patient choice. NSAIDs will probably be contraindicated in surgical type procedures due to anti-platelet effects. Panadol/acetaminophen isn't a true NSAID- so am unsure of it's indication in this regard. My advice is to talk to your doctor/who ever is taking the biopsy.

Um, so the net thing I should take out of this is that what we measure as time directly corresponds to "real"-time regardless of the location of calibration? (i.e. a clock matches A time, is moved to B and will match B time). So if that is the case than at B all our bodily processes would be slowed in correlation and we wouldn't observe any change of time given our frame of reference, but we would be slow in A's point of reference?

Hi, This question (below) has always bugged me. I searched through the existing posts but just managed to confuse myself even more. It is often said that time slows due to gravity (I'm fine with this) but then they use an example "If I put a clock next to a source of gravity, it would run slower than a clock away from that gravitational source". I have a few issues with this that I would like some clarification on please: 1) I can slow my watch/clock or whatever, but it has no effect on time (though it works wonders for making me late). Likewise, speeding my clock up does not accelerate me into the future- so I feel there is some disconnection between how we measure time, and time itself as a fabric of our universe. 2) (Also, specifically noting reason 1) If time was to noticeably slow down at a particular location would this actually slow my clock? I would have thought that mathematically speaking my clock should actually move ahead of time (i.e. it is now ticking more than once for every real second). Is this just me reading too analytically into a poor example? Or am I missing something fundamental in my reasoning? (I thought relativity was the best place to put this).