Suxamethonium

There are a few I've done as demos for yr 7 and yr8 highschool classes. All of them are online so i'll just put the titles/key words for you to research. 1) Glow in the dark goo (Be careful with this one... mine didn't glow in the dark and just looked like sperm Actually amazed none of the kids picked up on it). 2) Traffic lights (beaker of green turns yellow and red as you pour the solution into another beaker- then back) 3) Thermite- little bit of thermite in porcelin evapourating basin (costa you the evapourating basin!!) outside- use Mg ribbon to light it. 4) Touch powder is a good one, but its illegal to do in NSW now- so check your laws. Its nitrogen triiodide. Make less than a gram! 5) Elephant toothpaste 6) rubber bones 7) various experiments to do with reacting chromium (vii) oxide and ammonia gas. 8) ammonia fountain (inverted round bottom flask containing ammonia gas stoppered with 1 delivery tube. stick the other end of the tube in water (slightly acidic) with litmus or universal indicator to colour the water. eventually (i used to heat the flask to push some of the gass out) the water creeps up then when it hits the ammonia gas it dissolves forms a vacuum and sucks water up with enough velocity for the water to squirt to the top of the flask and run down the sides (changing colour because of the indicator). There are more, but they are a few to try. You will probs want to do a risk assesment for each and perform the demo first by yourself to familiarise yourself with the risks and procedure because standards online are sketchy sometimes.

Um... With or without the bleach, a very hot bath is likely to be avoided by anyone with thermoreceptors. Assuming they were not burning hot, household bleach diluted in a bathtub of water is probably just going to be like swimming in a pool with too higher chlorine added. Sting the eyes a bit kinda of thing- it would taste and smell bad, particularly as the heat will speed up decomposition into chlorine gas. It might pain any open cuts/wounds and possibly might cause some skin irritation after a few minutes. It really depends on the concentration- but I don't recomend any one actually does this.... Haha, though they would be nice and bacteria free... Finally I am intrigued as to how this fits into a TV drama plot... I've heard of the whole digesting a body in NaOH/NaClO (and usually to which they mistakedly add HCl or similar acids which would actually counter-act the base, de-stablise the hypochlorite and liberate toxic chlorine gas...) but that needs to be very concentrated to be effective (and is easily detectable- plus its harder to dissolve bones in alkaline solutions). That or they use HF- which sure would work except it would be hard not to kill yourself in the process of dissolving the body- and would easily dissolve the bath. But a hot bath with some bleach in it seems fairly benign. Edit: Oh, and something I just thought of- it takes a lot of sodium hydroxide and hypochlorite to fill a bath- a lot more than required to raise suspicion lol. Haha, and any amount of HF would probably warrant the same attention.

The funny thing is it is not at all hard to seperate from those... its seperating the opiod drug from the atropine they coadminster to prevent people trying to abuse it.. Ahh, the light it burns!

Um, so there is a lot to address in this post. Firstly, the alcohols you listed. Ethanol (EtOH) is a primary alcohol, as is n-butanol (nBuOH). Sec-butanol (sBuOH) is a secondary alcohol and tert- butanol (tBuOH) is a tertiary alcohol. benzene alcohol? Possibly benzyl alcohol or phenol- either way representing aromatic alcohols. Methyl chloride is obviously not an alcohol. The lucas test rarely works for primary alcohols (very very slow), is slow (15 mins) for secondary alcohols and is relatively fast for tertiary alcohols. The chromic acid test will react with primary and secondary alcohols but not tertiary. The iodoform test is for methyl ketones (RCOMe). I do not know of the methanol test. Solubility: Generally as the chain length increases the alcohol becomes less soluble in water. As for testing for chlorides, we used to clean the copper wire, flame it and then dip it in the sample and reflame. If the flame was greenish a halogen was present.

Lol... why do they try?

Note, the questions I ask are rhetorical. I mean, you can try and answer them if you want, but there is no definative answer. But if evil was introduced into the world by humanities misuse of free will (as is believed by most Christians), would it be God who did evil by making people (knowing they would be imperfect) or humanities for actually choosing to produce the evil act? Also you may say eating from a tree is not evil, however biblically the significance of the tree they ate from (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) meant that humanity was no longer ignorant (paraphrasing- they discovered they were naked, and felt ashamed) especially to evil. Did God truely not know what they were doing whilst he was 'gone'? Or was he giving them the chance to make their own choice whether to obey him without interfering? When he asked them what they did/were doing, did he not know? or was he giving them a chance to confess? The other question is what is evil and what is good? It is a question of general consensus and changes reflecting societies thoughts and development. So what WAS good and evil originally?

So Im assuming wiki is correct in saying that omnipotent roughly means "all power", from the latin. The problem in "can He make a rock so big He can't lift it" is not with omnipotency, but with sentence logic. Having all power would mean he could make a rock of any size, and be able to lift it. But making a rock that he can't lift, is assuming he has power limitation which is actually contradictory to the meaning of omnipotent. Also, If he were to allow such an event to happen, then he would be forfeiting omnipotency... and hence, again, the word meaning is sound. If the meaning of omnipotency was that easily falsified, the word would probably not exist. Anyway, this conversation is not going to reach a conclusion because science addresses the imediately observable and tries to understand it whilst religion attempts to address what we cannot (or possibly cannot) see, understand or fathom. And the two collide because they argue using points the other side does not comprehend as meaningful. In a truely reasoned world, one would ignore that which is unknowable and live life by the facts at hand- however, we are emotional beings with an urge to believe in something, whether it is religion, probablilty, mathematical law, humanity, conspiracy theories, etc, and we all have an opinion on what is important and what is right. Where this opinion is sound in belief, it will only ever be truely changed by a personal experience. Also, science will always be somewhat "wrong"- the more we discover, the more we change our models to better reflect what is aparently true. Why do we change it?- because we recognise it as now false, or less true than we originally thought. To argue using science in such absolute terms to say that something could never possibly exist or have existed seems foolish.

Um, firstly the digestive tract is a lumen, it is not the "inside" of the body... its the "outside". Think like a donut. So, the bacteria inside the digestive tract are effectively outside our bodies, the same as if they were on our skin. As such, perforating the bowel commonly leads to serious bacterial infections and toxicity (Escherichia coli is well known). So in that respect, yes you could say a person could infect themselves. However, if they have already contracted the pathogen (inside their body) but its dormant, asymptomatic, etc, they are still 'infected', and depending on the pathogen and its stage of developement, possibly 'infectious' to others.

Hmmm, you could lyse the cell, use desaturase and then use vanilin-PA... Lysing the cells isn't that much extra time- and i reckon the desaturase could just be left over night. I'm pretty sure desaturase wont effect any of the other lipids (like those in the membrane) so you should get an acurate result. You could always do the isolation essay a few times to compare/validate the results and confirm this.

They still use such high voltages to transport the electricity over distance, but it was never used for a GPO (our GPOs would glow from corona effect and leak electricity). I don't think there is any reason for the maximum high voltage to have influenced the GPO voltage (other than maybe similar multiples, which I suggested may be based on whole, rounded transformer ratios). (e.g. nationwide australia is the 230/400vac system at GPO and 3-phase outlets, but in different states 500kV or 330kV are the voltage in the high-voltage transmission lines used).

Sadly, a lot of people go to hospital instead of going to the GP (for things like flu and mild headaches)... I think that is what he was refering to in his comment, and definately was in mine.

Can't seem to get it easily in australia, but thats the same for a lot of chems. As for the hydrolysis it would probably be harder to seperate the two products (both alcohols) but with a fractionating column it wouldn't be too bad.

I think its main limitation is it seems to only consider the last question it asked, not the general flow of conversation. For example if you ask: Me: Are you a person? Bot: No Me: Are you sure? Bot: Yes Me: Why not? Bot: I said yes. The 'why not?' is very easily misinterpretted, but most people would think 'this doesn't make sense' and think back further to the root question and adapt it to "Why aren't you a person?' But the bot does not do this. Tthis hypothesis could also explain why conversation does not flow very well. Also, I can't help but think the constant changing of subject is due to some troll or hick using the bot... lol Edit: Slight change in confusing sentence structure.

I agree, but things like vaccinations and consultations for 'healthy' people can be important. Likewise regular check ups are also important, and ideally in the future regular blood tests would be used help to screen for common diseases where treatment is only really effective if found early on (i.e. before symptoms are evident). Of coarse, all this should be done at a GP, leaving hospital and specialist staff for emergency treatment and intensive care- completely agree with you there.

Well, yes natural nutrition is important, but that is not to discredit medication. Naturally managing things like epilepsy or psycosis would be very strenuous to try and achieve. Medication is fragile in the sense that its use needs to be well understood (that is supposed to be the reason it is prescribed). Drugs like methotrexate for example are being formulated and have potential to treat certain types of cancer. As more is understood, better medicines are being developed, and better methods of delivery and reducing side effects is ever increasing. We seem to be continuely moving further from the direction of an 'attack everything and hope the disease dies before the patient' approach to a much more selective 'seek and destroy'.

This reply is fairly specific to Australian systems but Im sure the principle is the same. I have clearly defined what I can source, what I have speculated and what I have heard. Take it as such. Ok, I have sourced (Electrical Wiring Practice Vol. 1 -ISBN 007471052-4) that Australian generators manufacture electricity in 3 phases (and a neutral is taken) and that these phases are 2(pi)/3 radians out of phase. Originally Australia was on a 240v Neutral to phase/415v Phase-Phase system but has reverted to 230/400v. Australian generaters typically produce 11kV, 17kV, 22kV or 23kV outputs and is typcally stepped up to 66kV, 132kV and 330kV (particularly primary grid except some states have 500kV systems) lines to cover distance efficiently. Ok, now a bit of speculation: From these high volatages, I'm assuming likely that the transformers have close to whole number ratios (like 1/600 or 1/500) which in Australia result primarily about 220 and 240V leading the average to be about 230 (+10%/-6%) - this in itself is obviously inconclusive but when it comes to 110v or 220v systems, it was probably just an arbitary decision made by each country. The values themselves are probably just a result of using whole ratios in tranformers- seeing as the generators are producing voltage in multiples of 11, it is not surprising the rest of the system follows suit. Finally, call it a rumour: I also heard many countries that went with the 240/415 or 230/400 systems did so because there was a greater voltage available (as opposed to 110/230 systems) from the phase-phase outlet without needing to step up in high demand industrial appliances. It is also more effecient transporting this along the low voltage distribution grid. I don't think it was at all influenced by safety- they are both as likely to be lethal as each other.

To be completely honest, synthesis is easy enough in theory, but in practise it involves synthesis, collection and reaction of mostly gaseous components for such small molecules. I feel the best way would be to find a cheap comercial product that is a t-butyl alcoholic ester, and then just hydrolyse. You also get a second compound which could be useful later. Otherwise you ar probably in for tedious practical methodology.

Oh yes.... let's inhale irritating oxidisers... I wont get pulmonary edema... Here is an MSDS for a 3% solution in water. You will notice "Harmful if swallowed" under the ingestion subheading in the toxicological profile. http://www.anachemia.com/msds/english/4988.pdf Also, the body does utilise hydrogen peroxide inside special vesicles in cells (and the hydrogen peroixe specially made for this purpose). It is used in conjunction with high acidity and special peptides designed to destroy proteins of the cell that are no longer needed or by immune cells to destroy pathogens- DESTROY PROTEIN and MADE AS REQUIRED being the important part. Otherwise, hydrogen peroxide (and radical) byproducts are quickly broken down and sequested by various mechanisms of the body to protect it from such uncontrolled damage. If you understand that H2O2 is used to destroy cells, why put it in your body to flow around and kill whatever cells it happens to encounter? There is no reason for it to target any one item in particular. Also, hydrogen peroxide can react with Fe2+, such as that in hemoglobin in the blood, catalysing the decomposition into water and the HO. and HOO. radicals... These are particularly harmful to cells. We synthesis our own anti-oxidants like glutathione, however once used up your body needs time to resynthesis its stores, and during this time the radicals can wreak havoc. (The toxicology of panadol (acetaminophen, tylenol) overdose is actually caused by this same principle/mechanism (i.e. on overdoes, a reactive metabolite is produced reducing glutathione levels which then lets the molecule destroy DNA and proteins)). Finally to indicate the damge radicals can cause, adding concentrated sulfuric acid to 30% hydrogen peroxide and heating makes a solution commonly referred to as "pirrana solution". Radicals are produced so readily, that carbon and organic residues can be disolved off in seconds (seen as a rapid liberation of carbon dioxide leaving the solution), I would imagine placing a fresh cutting from a living plant in this solution would have the same effect (although, would probs take longer)- actually I might try this next time im in the lab. At best these sites take information and present it in a biased way. At worst they just make it up, or deliberately ignore important evidence.

Haha, Ever looked up DHMO? Such sites are probably more credible than these H2O2 miracle cure sites. They use exaggerated accurate information to betray water (yes... H2O) in a very negative light (enough so that people try to 'ban' it). Never trust the internet blindly.

To be honest, I am not sure- but no one else seems to be posting. So my suggestion is experiment! (Read MSDS etc, take necessary precautions, etc- its fruit so it should be fairly low risk). Ok, so, the best suggestion for a proceedure I have is to: *Cut an apple into 6 or 12 pieces (use knife under parental supervision if appropriate- lol, all this saftey annotation is going to kill me). Then divide tose into 3 groups. *Two groups should be left alone, then one wetted with lemon juice (caution- acidic). Leave until the two untouched groups start to brown. *Take a photo (make sure the discolouration is clear) and then place one of the untouched groups in the lemon juice. *Take photos from then on at recorded time intervals (30secs to a minute- try to keep it regular but adjust as sensible). *Then you can compare the colouration of the 2 controls with the colouration of the test group. This way you can see if the colour has continued to darken (at the same, or slower rate than the 1st control), stayed the same colour or lightened returning to the fresh state or somewhere inbetween. I don't recomend you eat your experiment, although- technically I can't see any reason to suspect it any more dangerous than eating an apple with lemon juice on it but still... (Haha- I hope I sorted the safety aspect!) Best of luck! Please comment your results if you do an experiment! EDIT: Of coarse, if you can it will be valuable to consult literature to put any experimental findings into context

You could probably look into PMW- pulse width modulation. (i.e. changing the percent of duty cycle the coil current turns on and off)- That would allow you to control the heating with a simple microcontroller device. I think your problem will actually become, what material do you need to use that won't retain the heat and hence cool back down quickly- metals will do so quite quickly, but anyone who has an electric stove knows it still takes quite some time to air cool. Likewise, if you were using the coil to heat something with a high heat capacity (I'm going to say water for example), the coil would quickly cool back down, but the water would cool down much slower. Anyway- back to the heating, generally PWM allows you to use a significantly higher current in your circuit, and gives you easy digital control over a temperature- but as for 500-600F you would need to calculate the required current and duty cycle yourself, and I'm not sure how to do that (but there will be a formula somewhere?). That's about the extent of my knowledge however, best of luck. Edit: Really bad spelling mistake.

One idea that is a bit more original (in terms of science projects) might be, instead of looking at ways of harvesting energy in "alternative" ways (i.e. solar, geothermal etc) look into the technologies we have for storing such energy, and the pros and cons of the different technologies. I think that apart from increases efficiency and application of harvesting technologies, storing technologies are the next important thing. The easiest justification to use is that solar power is only very useful during sunny days- so being able to 'make the most of it' and store the left over energy for later is an important improvement. This is applicable to nearly all the alternative energy sources, because they rely on natural events to occur. If its more a practical based thing, another idea (albeit, not very original) might be to go out testing water and/or soil samples near various industrial/comercial and residential sites as well as less developed sites. You might not have the means to do a full AAS spec or anything, but a lot of the qualitative tests are easy enough to perform.

Could you do the reaction before heating/acidifying? To chlorinate a saturated alkyl chain will require the use of chlorine radicals. These will pull apart at everything organic in the vacinity of the radicals. No doubt you will get some attaching to the alkyl chain- but also to the rest of the compounds in the assay. Its predictability is low and I would imagine reproducibility would be low also. You would also be assuming to get near 100% yields which is fairly rare as far as organic reactions go, especially in a two step process. Note, in such reactions you are likely to get mixes of cis and trans products- (however some reactions favour one or the other depending on conditions) so you would also need to work out if the assay detects trans fats. I feel that your best bet would be to find some way to make the enzymatic process work- because synthetically your options are fairly limited and would probably not work reliably without at least extracting the fatty acids from the rest of the cell components first. My other suggestion would be using a different essay to find out the saturated fat content?