Suxamethonium

Hi Donna, Straight up I want to say that I'm not trying to 'shut you down' or anything like that, so please don't take offense or anything like that. This is merely my opinion based on what I've been taught so far in chemistry, physiology etc. I am not an expert in these fields, but I feel I know enough to make the following advice: Firstly, hydrogen peroxide is not something I would be eating. It can be toxic. A 3% solution is likely enough to cause aggrevation of any stomach ulsers and may also induce them. Non-stabalised hydrogen peroxide is also likely to quickly decompose (into water and oxygen gas) in the stomach causing ructus (belching) and as such is less likely to be absorbed by the body to any significant extent. It can cause nausea and vomitting. And there is no known benefit for ingesting the compound. On a side note, the body makes small amounts of peroxides in side reactions and actually decomposes it quickly to avoid damage to the body- as such any hydrogen peroxide you did absorb would likely be decomposed rapidly upon entering the blood stream, possibly producing gas emboli (gas bubbles in the blood stream). Furthermore, I'm not sure how you can make something thats not already 'food grade' into food grade without access to sensitive equiptment... Not too mention that you won't know it's food grade unless you have the means and equiptment to determine the impurities, if they are toxic, and if they are less than the required thresholds to classify something as such. Food grade is a standard of purity (to certify chemicals that can be used in food products- example preservatives), it does not mean they should be eaten by themselves. Finally, in the interest of safety- it sounds like you may have been planning on concentraing the 3% solution? I would like to address that because it is very important that you don't! (Firstly, heating up the solution would likely degrade the peroxide and leave you with a weaker solution)- BUT, if you managed to concentrate it without a stabaliser it is quite likely to explosively decompose. There is a reason why 50% is so expensive (shipping), and why 80% is only used in very specialised circumstances. Regards

Lol- I jumped straight in and forgot to mention buying the reagents *facepalms* Also in reference to the synthesis... If it is absolutely essential to start from a saturated fatty acid and progress to a non saturated one (i.e. you can't buy them for whatever reason) then I think the best bet would be to try using fatty acid desaturases? This will also provide the ability to selectively decide what carbons the double bond(s) form between and will also give cis- selectivity (which could be changed to trans synthetically... [palladium chemistry? I'm not 100% sure, but it should be easy enough to find out])...

Do you have to start with a saturated fat? There are a few ways to synthesis (poly)-olefins, off the top of my head the Suzuki reaction comes to mind. But I can't really see a reaction that will give a good yeild of the particular unsaturated fats that you want from the saturated compound. Seeing as the carboxylate head is the most reactive part of the chain- it's very possible to replace it with an extended carbon chain that contains a double bond then put a carboxylate on the 'new end'. There are numerous way to go about this, but for example the following : R- COOH -> R-COOMe -> R-C(=O)-CH2-CH=CH-CN -> R-CH(=O)-CH2-CH=CH-COOH At step three you can decide to remove the ketone to leave either CH2 or reduce before hand to create an OH to dehydrate a final compound with R-CH=CH-CH=CH-COOH. (I just left the ketone alone in the above schematic). Of course, the effect of this method would be that the new fatty acid would also be longer than the original saturated acid- which may not suit the parameters you require.

Ah ok, makes a bit more sense. But I still feel that if the bill passed there would be adequate international companies to find work arounds... From the seemingly legitimate companies put out by it, it sounds like its just going to stuff up the american economy even more. O.o Haha- I hate politics...

I would assume, it only seeks to elliminate funding from or through America? To me that implies that America, once again, seems to feel that the world somehow centralises around them. To be honest, I always thought the biggest buyer in pirate copies and such were countries of the European continent (this is pure conjecture- just the impression that I got growing up).

My point was so that all the people put out by it could know for next time. I use wiki for quick varification of info on the fly rather than shifting through google sites and papers trying to find what is probably 'assumed' anyway- so I understand how much quicker using a work around can be compared to searching the literature and thought I would share for others that MAY be interested. As for the political stance, analoguous bills haven't passed before- why should they pass now anyway? I'ld take it they just wanted to hype it up a bit- probably made the news, it made facebook... nothing like a bit of free publicity. And if the point wasn't to stop people using wiki- then why didn't they have a link so once you were inconvienced by the add you could move on to required information? They stated their point was to block out the information for a day in protest (bla bla bla politics, sopa etc)- not close the site down and if you turned off the server there wouldn't be an ad to alert us to 'it's sopa fault' in the first place. I really don't understand where your argument lies. Edit: Immortal- It worked in firefox. Dunno bout IE might be a bit tempremental? Haven't used it in ages.

Well... I'm not sure if this will work as well as chloroform, but ethyl chloride and ethylene dichloride are still used for a few things- perhaps these are cheaper and more readily available to you? And if you got them cheap and they don't work for this at least they are handy solvents to have around Edit: I was sticking with the chlorides because recrystalisation is as easy as letting the solvent evapourate- but you may find that poly ethylene glycols (PEGs) might be useful (or maybe even dioxane or THF might based on solutbility in ether). Idk... this is mostly just speculation so maybe try with what you have and hope for the best? Do you have anything to confirm what your end compound is? GCMS, NMR, IR etc.

:S I really hope that doesn't happen here. The other thing you could do if the acetone etc doesn't work, is make chloroform using the haloform reaction (acetone and hypochlorite) and use that to perform the extraction.

If you have a simple distillation set up you can get cheap DCM from DCM paint stripper... It is literally DCM mixed with a gel to make it stick to the wall lol. Its 87% here in australia, and its like $20AUD for 500g... it's obviously not going to be reagent grade after a simple distillation, but it wille be more than satisfactory for an extraction. Edit: As for acetone and white spirirt, they will probably work, but will also bring through a lot of less desired compounds- that may be why wiki has the other method suggested?

Hmmm, I can understand why looking at or seeing the earth as round alone seems inconclusive when you can see all sorts of weird effects in space caused by things such as black holes... however, the fact that you can fly around the earth in either direction and reach your destination should render as conclusive evidence.

My first thought would be that major companies would host sites overseas to escape the legislation? If this is insufficient some big companies may even shift ownership to another country?? However my reason for commenting was simply- If it happens again, and you want to use wiki- just turn of "enable javascript" in your browser, as it was simply a script (im guessing called by a central CSS code) that "blacked out" the page in the first place. Just remember to re-enable before using script based pages like facebook.

I wiki-ed it to find out it's structure- but I read a bit on the preparation and it is suggested to remove the alcohol from the alcoholic extract, wash the residue with sodium hydroxide and dissolve the remaining residue in ethanol, to which the compound is suppost to crystalise from. However, this has not been cited, so I don't know how accurate it is. Out of interest, why do you wish to avoid DCM?

Righteo- Despite having a bunch of relatives in england I still have no grasp on how exactly the GCSE works- but I'm led to believe it's somewhat similar to the school certificate in aust. *Just saying that because I managed to confuse myself yet again*.. haha Anyway- so what I used to do was spend my free time surfing wikipedia (and I know it's not a creditable reference- but I find it's great for just overveiwing general trends, concepts and satisfying curiosity) until I found things that interested me, and then I'ld go back and click on the interesting links and eventually I learned what I wanted to learn more about (for me it was organic chem). Then once I did that I used text books, google and whatever other resouces I had available to me to learn more. The only downside is that it makes school even easier! Haha, I used to make my friend draw crazy organic molecules so I could work out the systematic name to pass the time.

I'm less informed in the IT area of things, but from an electronics perspective- if both chips have the same number of components (assuming transistors here) then the one with the higher number of registers may have a greater allocation of components for it. If so, what areas of the chip have sacrificed numbers of components in order to provide the extra registers? Also from my electronics background I can attempt to sus out the question a bit- then you can research what I've come up with and see if it is helpful. I've just done this off the top of my head from working with PICs and such- so there may be inaccuracies- but it should give you a starting point with which to research and work out the answer. Ok, so for a PIC or similar type processor: Register- the register will provide an amount of on-board memory for storing instructions and data values. The bigger the register the larger amount of data you can store or the bigger the program you can write without having to buy extra components (say (e)eprom chips) to store this data. Usually register size effects the price and size of a chip. Speed- Speed depends on clock speed. Off the top of my head all but the high-end chips take 2 clocks per instruction- which means that the maximum clock limit should decide processing speed. Usually as the chips get more capable, the clock increases from 4 or 8MHz to 16 or 20MHz- so perhaps this could be what the question is after? The other possibility is the amount of time it takes to retrieve information from such sized registers? But this would most likely depend on the data aquistion circuits of the manufacturer of the chips in question. Try looking along those lines and see if you can answer the question- if not Im out of ideas.

If it's any help, I'm happy to share a bit of my experiences, but I'm also australian- but it might be helpful, who knows? Anyway, I ended up doing medicinal chemistry as an unergraduate course (Chemistry faculty), and whilst I can only speak for my institution (uni of wollongong) it was for the most part: biology with emphasis in bio-chem, gentics and cellular biology and chemistry- fairly broadly, we covered general- 1st year chem, physical, analytical and inorganic chem. And in third year covered medicinal and organic chemistry in much greater depth (although, If im honest, I wish there had have been more organic subjects). The rest were subjects thrown in to increase or give a base to the understanding of the body and the normal function of the targets that drugs and medicines act on. So anatomy and physiology. As well as specific subjects on what drugs are and how they act- pharmacology. If you ended up doing degrees in medical science or courses with similar structures you would probably be in a good position to move into that area of study/research. As for post grad, I'm about to start an Masters of Pharm degree that could take me into clinical pharmacy, dispensing pharmacy, industrial pharmaceuticals, research pharmacy or prosibly a heap more (following an internship hence allowing me to aquire registration). I think once you have got the required credentials, there is no real limit to how you can apply what you've studied except by what careers are available to your disposal. I can't really talk much more about it because I don't start it for another month, but I hope I was somewhat helpful.

I'm am curious about the sweat glands/loss of hair thing... It seems that it would make sense, except that people sweat under their arms, where there is a significant amount of hair? I've never much been interested in evolutionary biology, but I strayed here, and now I'm curious.

Haha, I could be wrong- But is this like prussian blue (I only say it because it would mean we unknowingly see it all the time)? If not, I probably just havent grasped what you said clearly (Highly likely- organic chem is more my area). Thanks for elaborating on what I said, I was worried that I wasn't detailed enough.

Hey So, true a lewis base is an electron pair donor (and vice versa), and true a lewis acid is technically reduced during electron transfer. As for OIL RIG (Oxidation Is Loss - Reduction Is Gain). If theres any confusion, to clarify: In oxidation, electrons are lost to form an oxidised product. And in reduction electrons are gained to produce a reduced product. From your post I am of the impression, that these of themselves you don't have much trouble with, rather its how you've brought them together? I think it is more the redox than the lewis base, so I'm going to try and outline that and see how you go? So, If you have Cu+ and oxidise it, you take away an electron (or -ve charge). So charge sum would be +1 - -1 = +2 and you get Cu2+. Likewise, if you have Cu+ and reduce it, you add an electron and so get, +1 + -1 = 0, Cu(s). As such if you had Li+ as a lewis acid, which is reduced (accepting 2 electrons), you would get something akin to Li- (though in reality it would exist as a covalent or dative bond). Likewise, Ammonia (lewis base) reacts with borontrifluoride (lewis acid) to give the adduct, which has a dative bond between the nitrogen (also + charged) and boron (also - charged). The nitrogen (base) was oxidised, and the boron (acid) reduced. I hope this shows that the theories are compatable?? As for which is a stronger lewis acid of base, I was under the impression it was much more complex than which has the highest oxidation number. Possibly linked to oxidation/electronic potentials? Hope I helped out a bit.

<br /><br /><br /> Yes... Electrolysis of lead and zinc is fine for a hobbyist- the salts have relatively low melting points, and the metals that are produced are much less reactive than sodium. They also sink- where as sodium floats. If you used THAT set up to produce sodium I can see 3 imediate issues: The sodium produced is at an odd 750+ degrees celcius, floating to the top such that it is exposed, not only to atmospheric oxygen, but to hot chlorine and finally you have to somehow melt a decent amount of sodium chloride or similar salt (which, even with certain salts to lower the melting point, is still more than 700 degrees celcius). As for the video on potassium, that looks like a useful method- and probably much more achievable for the hobbyist than electrolysis.

Um, ok- I'm not sure where you may be at in bonding education, so i'll to try and keep it simple. N2 needs to share 3 pairs of electrons between the nitrogen atoms to be 'happy', which results in a tripple bond. Looking at bond energies (the energy required to break a bond in 1 mole of gaseous compound) for a carbon-cabron tripple bond (812kJ/mol), and nitrogen-nitrogen tripple bond (941kJ/mol) we see that nitrogen is only stronger by 130kJ/mol. This is expected because of nitrogens higher electron affinity. A carbon-carbon single bond (347kJ/mol) and carbon-hydrogen single bond (414kJ/mol) are much easier to break, which helps explain why combustion of hydrocarbons is 'easy' (and why the reaction yeilds so much energy). **Side thought- If you are wondering why a tripple bond is more reactive than a single bond** It is because the bonds break in steps- it only takes 200kJ/mol to break the tripple bond to a double bond which is approx. half of the energy required to break a single bond.*** Ok, so now diatomic oxygen. We often draw O2 as O=O. But more accurately it is a di-radical looking somthing like this .O-O. . The radical exists because electrons are in what are called "anti-bonding orbitals"- i.e. not going to form a bond- which leaves the oxygen "unhappy" (but still STABLE compared to singlet (O=O) oxygen which has bonding orbitals much higher in energy). Also, the presence of the anti bonding orbital weakens the bond energy of the O-O single bond between the radicals. As such O2 is more reactive than expected by electron affinity alone. Finaly, there are the bond energies in water and carbon dioxide (products of combustion) compared to nitrogen dioxide (combustion of nitrogen). The release of energy is significant in regular combustion, but not so in nitrogen combustion. Combustion of nitrogen does occur- but at high energy costs.

From what I can remember, any normal electrolysis of sodium salt solutions yields production of hydroxide due to water being more easily reduced than the sodium ion. The exception is using a mercury cathode like in the old mercury based chlor-alkali process which yielded a sodium amalgam. Perhaps this is a possible, less violent route to the element- but it is definately not without hazard- theres also the problem of seperating mercury from the amalgam without contaminating everything around you- or worse causing a violent reaction with the sodium throwing mercury droplets and vapour everywhere. My advice is to buy sodium, or leave it be- of itself it is not likely to turn your world upside down, but trying to make it in large amounts probably will.

Didn't think of ligands... good idea- maybe you might be interested to find out if it is chiral (im not sure if you have already- it sounds like you did the test, but im not entirely sure about any results)? At least you know its not overly complicated (bipyrimadine, ethylene diamine, tartrate) from the HNMR and CNMR. My other suggestion- is more conjecture- but if you can find an inorganic, WHITE, compound that contains iron (most have a greeny or yellow colour) and calcium- you might be able to work on trying to prove it IS that, rather than it ISN'T everything else? If it's been recrystallised it should be a single compound, and not a mixture of compounds.

Yeah- AAS is atomic absorption spec. It'll do most metals, and some will do some non-metals like chloride. Otherwise- go to a high school and ask if they mind if you perform some displacement reactions to work out the compound. Its pretty standard school work over here in australia, but im unsure elsewhere. Anyway- They should be able to describe specifics if you need a hand but the idea of it is: 1) You dissolve some of your sample to make a solution. 2) You add this to a series of solutions containing a known salt. 3) You observe for precipitation, indicating an insoluble compound. 4) Use solubility 'rules' to interpret the ions present, and hence your compound. example. Mixing NaCl and Pb(NO3)2 would precipitate white PbCl2. The white precipitate indicates the chloride is present (Iodide would be yellow. Bromide goes brown in light. Sulfate may also cause a white precipitate?). These solubility can be found online- here is an example: http://chemistry.about.com/od/solutionsmixtures/a/solubility-rules.htm You may find better ones if you look more thoroughly than I just did. If you cannot find a school or other institution to give you access, (bi +)carbonates, (bi +)sulfates, phosphates, nitrates and even hydroxides are readily available to a household- but it is much easier if you can find a school.

Ok, so inorganic- (edited out now completely irrelevent old post). Not exactly my area, but did it contain any carbon or hydrogen at all? example, HCO3- or CO32- ? Or the HNMR would show if it was wet or dry (H2O). Um. I guess precipitation reactions or AAS may be most beificial to you, the former you can do at home using a variety of household substances. Let me know if this interested you- i'll think of some important ones.

I won't lie and say I've never tasted anything in the lab- but only if I've known what it is (and even then I understand that there are risks of impurity, etc so I avoid it). Haha, But I did find it funny- anyway, I agree that this information isn't very helpful and that HNMR, GC-MS, or even just an MS would be much more informative. Even IR would be more helpful than physical appearance. The only reason I wanted to add to this was because if it is a hydrochloride salt, neutralising with ammonia solution would yeild the free base (which should have different physical properties, and may help in identification if the afforementioned in the absence of GC-MS and HNMR).