Suxamethonium

Hi- I'm not much for the writing type so I just kinda put together my ideas/life example in the hope that they would be helpful to you So I am assuming this book is fiction, and it is absolutely awesome that you are checking feasibility!! If I were you however, I wouldn't get too "bogged down" in the technicalities- for example, perhaps this is a "new" type of virus that can infect something common (perhaps fictional?) to all mosquitoes? Alternatively you might have a viral agent that uses a bacterial vector for a real twist in our current idea of disease (i.e. bacteria spreading the virus- this would likely spread quickly and easily even if 'people' are contained initially). I personally think it is ok to bend the rules of reality in fiction that is trying to remain realistic provided there is an explained, logical link as to why it occurred (although, there are limits in this that movies are practically famous for ignoring). On a personal note regarding these things, I watched crank the other day... Watching it was painful merely because they tried to be correct- but were just blatantly wrong. I nearly cried when they called epinephrine an 'inhibitor/antagonist' (judging from the story line the guy was effectively overdosed on a beta-1 blocker and it certainly isn't incurable). Needless to say my friends got sick of saying "It's a movie". I guess my point here is that people ignorant in the area wont really know and don't want to get distracted by details, as for the others it will most likely vary based on how anal they are I suppose. Write something you are happy with

Most of the time acids are stored in glass or HDPE plastic depending on acid and purpose. Acids unsuitable for storage in these containers are often stored in Teflon (TPFE) lined containers.

When this was explained to me in high school I was told that the valance electrons in metals are fairly delocalised such that metal could be represented basically as a lump of matter with electrons flowing in, through and around it. So when you connect a circuit, the electron from the battery is not the same electron collected by the battery at the completion of the circuit. To explain this better I'm going to set this out as a 'flow diagram' kind of thing: 1. Electron from battery is deposited to the metal (i.e. lump of matter with free electrons). 2. The metal now has an excess of electrons. 3. At some other location of the metal an (i.e. ANY) electron jumps off to restore the balance. This electron can only do this in a completed circuit. This electron is probably not the same electron that originated from the battery. 4. This electron passes it's energy to the next part of the circuit, and so on until an electron completes the redox reaction in the battery. From this, it may be more apparent why this process can be so instantaneous regardless of electron speed. Also, "slow" for an electron is still insanely fast in our books.

I am confused. If you are only separating products why do you need a redox reaction? Distillation is a process by which molecules are separated based on physical properties (specifically their boiling point). Redox reactions are a chemical interaction between a reducing and oxidating agent. Summary: Oxidation is a loss of an electron(s) from a molecule or atom. Reduction is gain of electrons. Naturally if you have either reduction or oxidation at some location then the opposite must also occur because electrons can't just appear/disappear. I.e. the electron is transferred so compound A is reduced only when compound B is oxidised. I am sorry if I have mis-interpreted your question, please explain if I have not answered your question.

Just I thought but if I was to stare into a bright light- it 'hurts' my eyes. Perhaps this kind of 'over-sensory' stimulation is also partly responsible in this situation?

I was under the impression that fracking would only cause that effect in houses which use bore/ground water. I guess I got that impression because the gas is coming out of solution at atmospheric pressure, so water that was originally sitting in a dam or processed by a plant would quickly degas. Would be interested if anyone can verify that though as it is only my own conclusion.

I'm not an (atmospherologist?) so please correct me if I am misguided, but I would feel that the 'added mass' contributed to the atmosphere would not be cause for major concern for the following reasons: *The light gases from such drilling (e.g. helium, hydrogen) escape the earths gravity over time and as such their mass will not accumulate over time. *Carbon dioxide resulting from combustion of the mined products will quickly integrate into the natural systems ultimately leading to a significant amount entering the oceans and eventually precipitating as carbonate rock on the sea floor. A similar process would likely occur for the sulfurous products via atmospheric hydrogen sulfide. *Of any gas that was to remain in the atmosphere, its weight would be roughly evenly spread over the whole surface area of the earth. It would also take up volume, potentially pushing more gases into the exosphere to slowly dissipate into space removing mass from the atmosphere. As for the 'voids' I haven't really got any ideas.

I noticed you mentioned FDA so I am not doubting your statement as I have very limited knowledge of the American system. However, I have been taught that in Australia a generic must be bioequivalent- meaning the same drug must reach the same concentration in the blood in the same amount of time as the branded version within strict variation guidelines. If it is not bioequivalent it cannot be provided as a generic substitution- even if it is based on the same drug. For anyone interested in more detail, this article provides a good summary http://www.australia...azine/26/4/85/7 particularly under the 'bioequivalence' subheading.

Ah, yes I see. Fair enough then.

I understand your point, but I don't think the word "unimolecular" is explicitly meant to mean one molecule in a reaction sense, just that only one reactant is rate limiting. Like wise, bimolecular implies 2 reactants are rate limiting.

I mean like From Sydney I could fly out towards America and keep going to get to England. Or I could fly out over Singapore, over India and get to england- you couldn't fly over the America way without flying over other countries if the earth was a disc.

First off, just to clarify that weak and concentrated are different concepts. If the acetic acid was too 'weak' it would not react regardless of concentration as weak is in reference to it's pKa. If the acetic acid wasn't concentrated enough (more likely) then you are correct and increasing concentration will cause an obvious reaction. You could try to increase the concentration by distillation- fractional distillation could achieve a high percentage, but even a simple distillation setup should give noticeable improvement. Alternatively, you could sit the reaction on a hot plate. The heat (like increasing concentration) will increase the reaction rate.

*I'm in Australia, so I don't know how much overlap there will be, but here goes..* First and for most, education- Many older people probably don't want to change brands because they have set up some sort of method to identify when to take what. Generics have different packaging to the branded versions and can confuse the patient (particularly if they have both forms at the same time like if they've kept the older, branded medication then double dosing can occur). As such it may be beneficial to offer services that pre-dose which medicines they need to take (e.g. like a Webster-pak). Steps like the latter may also help with patient compliance. Following on from the discussion above, it is also important to explain that generic companies have to prove the generic to be bioequivalent (i.e. the same API, have the same effects, mechanism of action, time of onset etc.) and make clear that it is the same quality drug (not like generic toilet paper which is substandard and scratchy lol). The idea behind generics is simply that the intellectual property is expired, so anyone can manufacture and distribute the drug- which leads to more competitive marketing as companies try to get a piece of the pie. The branded price will also drop by about 90%. In Australia we have the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) in which the patient pays up to about $35 of any PBS listed medication and the concession rate is $5.80. On some of these medications that are covered a brand fee applies (usually a $1-5 on the meds I've looked up) if the patient decides against a generic. (In reality the scheme is much more complex, but thats the gist/relevant parts of it). So if a patient wants a medication covered by the PBS, they will save a couple of bucks buying the generic. If the drug isn't on the PBS- they pay full price, so the generic saving is usually higher. All in all, I feel that the emphasis should remain on the education side of things- and if people are still dead set on the branded version it's the governments choice whether or not to cover it, or partially cover it. I personally feel it lies outside the governments responsibility- however, as a future (hopefully industrial) pharmacist- I understand that covering the brands would be of interest to the originator company- as less people may change to generics. I hope that was helpful. I'm only new to studying pharmacy, so I hope it makes sense. Also we are in the middle of PBS reform- so things may be changing.

I liked this thread, but thought I might contribute my own thoughts because they were skimmed over, but not really talked about: Firstly, we can readily treat some forms of cancer with high success rates with a combination or choice of surgery and medication (methotrexate, 5-flurouracil and tamoxifen come to mind)- yes these only work for specific cancers, but they do work effectively at curing the patient for these cancers (rather than just managing the patient). Secondly, there is a lot of research into drugs targeting the processes that most cancers have in common (targeting the proliferation of cells, or the development of vascular system for example). Some of these drugs will simply stop growth, but some may work to reverse the process. So, whilst I agree there wont be a "silver bullet" it's highly likely that medicinal treatment of cancer will become much more effective in the future. That said, prevention and improved treatment is necessary- but instinct tells me that the older you get the more inevitable cancer will become as the likeliness of genetic degradation increases so prevention probably has a limit.

I accept it as a legitimate name. Also I never stated that I personally reference ammonia solutions as ammonium hydroxide, just that I accept that some people do and that the name is valid- so me calling water hydronium hydroxide is technically going to be inconsistent. So are you finished, or is there another smart comment on the way? _______________ Oh, also a post targeted at the original OPs question. I've been thinking about this and browsing the web a bit. When NaOH reacts with aluminum the following reaction takes place: 2Al+ 2NaOH+ 6H2O -->2NaAl(OH)4 +3H2 So, I was thinking that maybe -OH attacks and removes the oxide coating of the aluminium first: 2-OH + Al2O3 + 3H2O --> 2Al(OH)4- Then the aluminium surface is free to react with water: Al + 3H2O --> Al(OH)3 + 1.5H2 Al(OH)3 reacts with excess -OH to produce Al(OH)4- Al(OH)3 +2NaOH --> 2NaAl(OH)4- If the above is correct then in ammonia solution, the -OH could be sufficient to remove the oxide layer and start the reaction with water but not concentrated enough to convert the hydroxide to aluminate leaving you with the aluminium hydroxide. I haven't looked for any papers to support this hypothesis yet- it's just based on stuff I found online. I'll have a bit of a browse in my downtime (Just started at a new uni- trying to work out their database system).

"and so the name is still misleading." Yes- the name can be misleading and more-so in certain contexts. I completely agree. I just don't feel that a complete withdrawal of the name from use is required, or that jumping down peoples throats about it is appropriate. Most chemists recognise that the solution is in equilibrium and recognise that the term "ammonium hydroxide" is used to refer specifically to an ammonia/water solution despite its inaccurate description of the actual molecular species present and the possibility of misinterpretation. My grounds for keeping the name is not because I think it is accurate (I don't), but because it is well known and the ambiguity that is present on a theoretical level (i.e. what molecular species is present) disappears when employed physically (i.e. However it is labeled you can only ever physically have an ammonia solution with a few ammonium and hydroxide ions present in equilibrium). Basically, I'm saying that the theoretical misinterpretation is unlikely to transpose to practical error- especially as the 'misinterpretation' better describes the properties of its solutions at first glance, e.g. pH.

"Logically, something that does not exist does not attack aluminium." Right... so ammonia solution doesn't have basic properties towards water then? You are saying hydroxide does not exist in access this solution at all are you? I prepose that if you remove the oxide layer and place in ammonia solution I expect you would see the same reaction occur- albeit more slowly. Secondly just because hydroxide attacks it, doesn't mean hydroxide is the only thing that attacks it- so ammonia might still participate in or catalyse a reaction despite its basic (or lack of, as you imply) properties. I agree that ammonium hydroxide is not an accurate physical description. But I disagree that it is not a useful identifier on the grounds of: It still decribes accurately it's basic properties and ideal existance, and it is widely recognised by both the scientific and non-scientific communities alike. It is not an illogical name- it's just that in a real life situation the "ideal" properties are not realised. And saying that "ammonium hydroxide doesn't exist" without any further explaination does not answer anything at all- especially not if the person was to have little understanding in chemistry. It is a closed, dismissive statement with no constructive purpose and quite honestly wrong as aluminium does react with ammonia (or so called ammonium hydroxide) solution (apparently producing hydrogen gas).

"but I think that's bad enough to ditch it." So you have the opinion that the term should be ditched- why do you feel that the rest of the chemist community has to agree with you? It's physically inaccurate, but so what? Why do you feel the need arrises to shut down a person asking a legitimate question for a nonlegitimate reason? There is really no reason why your first post was necessary- you didn't contribute to the question at all and in my opinion you were quite rude about it- particularly seeing as the term is widely accepted regardless of its physical accuracy. Maybe if the question related more specifically to the physcial state of the ammonia/ammonium in particular and was presented in an informative (not condescending) way I could see your point- but it sounds like you just want to be seen as "more correct" despite that many of us also understand the concept and physical availability of an ammonia/ammonium hydroxide solution.

But in the "very begining" we don't think that we even had the simplest sub atomic particles (protons, neturons etc) and that it was mostly 'particles' like quarks.... Then take into account expansion speed versus cooling time (just starting to make elements let alone complex molecules)... I'm just saying that from a probability stand point a common ancestor is very unlikely unless other life is within a reasonable distance from us- even a microbe would struggle to survive the cosmic radiation outside the earths protective field and the resultant mutations would render the organism unrecognisable by comparison so evolutionary traits would be lost- this is not even addressing a source of sustainance for the organism. The more probable explaination would be if earth moved into the solar orbit after life existed- but that discounts all current evidence that has been the focus of our current theories.

If there is another life form within some distance that can be travelled- what is the probability they have sex in a similar way, or even at all? Also- the chances of them being humanoid would be highly unlikely if evolution occurs the way we think it does- unless we somehow have a common ancestor?!?

LOL... If you have "Organic Chemistry" by Clayden et al you should get a bit on the reactions/conditions/synthesis of phosphines- I like this text book- but I'm sure you can find something appropriate at the library (generally a good place to start).

"I'm sure you agree that..." I don't see how you can be sure of that. If you are actively listening then you will notice we are outrightly saying why we DON'T agree that such names are not useful- in fact due to familiarity these names are probably MORE useful. "ammonium/aluminium complex" sorry, I wasn't very clear- I meant things similar to ammonium/aluminium double salt complexes (like ammonium aluminium sulfate)- although the ammonium is not truely part of the complex. "We have ditched most of the silly names- why keep this one?" Well it is not particularly "silly". In theory the name makes sense- it's just in that in practice the equilibrium isn't favourable. Most people (particularly those without a chemistry background) can identify with the term "ammonium hydroxide" so why change it just for the sake of being anal? Also- whilst the term inaccurately describes it's physical composition- it still accurately describes its properties and conveys its identity (I.e. High pH, reacts with acids to form ammonium slats) unlike your "salts of lemon" example which describes only the origin of the compound- not identity, properties or composition. If someone refers to methylated spirits in a post are you going to jump on them with "Actually, methanol isn't added to ethanol cleaning products anymore- you need to call it denatured ethanol."? That is really not a helpful or constructive response and isn't that the point of this forum.. to be helpful not condescending? Edit: Just an add. Ethylene (which you said was perfectly acceptable) can refer to H2C=CH2 or RCH2-CH2R. Obviously my point here is that in writing they are both written "CH2CH2" but structually and chemically they are completely different and without context is completely ambiguous. In retrospect "ammonium hydroxide" is actually more appropriate than the ethylene example because it doesn't require context for a person to know what you are refering to.

As mentioned before it is not practical to do so but if the question was a matter of "in theory" could it happen and you were to place the solution under a strong vacuum I would not argue against some loss of CO2 based on Le Chatelier's principle- I wouldn't hazard a guess as to the significance of such disolution though.

I'm confused, is the starting material equivalent to 1-bromo-2,2-dimethyl-1-phenylpropane? Or is the bromine on the aromatic ring- the 'benzene root' is confusing me. Anyway, when ever I got these questions, Once I hd drawn the molecule I'ld formulate some questions in my head, for example: Are there any groups that can leave in an elimination reaction? Under what conditions would they leave? Are there any groups that can leave in a substitution reaction? What conditions?(If applicable, hard or soft nucleophiles). Are there any groups subject to electrophilic substitution reactions? Under what conditions? Label carbons 10, 20 , 30 if it helps you. Then look at the conditions in the question and try to match them up.

Um, do you have access to Ion-exchange chromatography at all? If so, you should be able to identify any cations present. Otherwise, I don't really know- a large number of compounds have white or off white precipitates (I included white, because often impure precipitates of "white" compounds appear off-white).