jimmydasaint

Hang on, I thought the % method referred to weight per volume, e.g. 5% of agarose would represent 5 g dissolved in, and made up to 100 ml. I don't think I need to say more because this is homework help.

IMHO, the Maglev train using computers to guide a train by the principles of repulsion and attraction is a superb example of modern engineering overcoming a problem. The problem is to move populations around as quickly safely, and without hassle to different conurbations, either within a country or internationally. The priciples are demonstrated below: and How Maglev trains work However, it strikes me, as a member of the energy consuming public, that this seems to use a lot of electricity and raw materials. Of more concern to me is how much energy the trains will drain from the National Grid, and how this compares to the amount of fossil fuels used by aeroplanes. Is a maglev another energy consuming idea that will force us to burn more fossil fuels to generate electricity for it, or can it become an elegant and intelligent solution to future travel?

It certainly looks that way. Has this topic been controversial because one looks like a strain of the other? Additionally, are the proteins significantly different, because each yeast would display proteins on their surface, which could be recognised by antibodies?

Whilst I am not trying to over simplify the multiplicity of causes that can contribute to coronary heart disease, I wonder if prevention is better than a cure. For example, if people at risk took regularly high levels of S methyl cysteine that is found in garlic and turmeric, could they avoid the deleterious effects of high blood cholesterol levels and the increased risk of atheroma, aneurysm or thrombosis? Link For example, this article suggests that a synergistic effect of S methyl cysteine and another chemical can cause a measurable effect in reducing cholesterol in patients: Link to Abstract However, how many people even realised that consuming S-methyl cysteine was a preventative method? Ant comments?

Yes. In my example,only slightly related to yours, 12 ml 20% acrylamide/ 0.8% bisacrylamide 12.5 ml 4X Tris buffer 25.5 ml H2O 10 ul 2% bromophenol Then, 20% acrylamide + 0.8 bisacrylamide = approximately 20.8 g/100 ml solvent = 0.208 g of acrylamide:bisacrylamide per ml. I have 12 ml, therefore I have 12 x 0.208 g total amount of acrylamide/bisacrylamide = 2.496 g Then this amount is spread over 12 + 12.5 + 25.5 ml in total = 50 ml So there are 2.496 g per 50 ml and therefore 4.992 g/ 100 ml, making it an approximately 5% SDS/PAGE gel which I assume you need to separate out high molecular weight macromolecules? If not, I have messed something up in the calculations.

I hope I am Ok in doing these calculations so I will prepare an exemplar. Others can correct me if my method needs correction. Mods, if I am too detailed in my advice, then I apologise in advance. Let's imagine that you have: 12 ml 20% acrylamide/ 0.8% bisacrylamide 12.5 ml 4X Tris buffer 25.5 ml H2O 10 ul 2% bromophenol Then, 20% acrylamide + 0.8 bisacrylamide = approximately 20.8 g/100 ml solvent = 0.208 g of acrylamide:bisacrylamide per ml. I have 12 ml, therefore I have 12 x 0.208 g total amount of acrylamide/bisacrylamide. Then this amount is spread over 12 + 12.5 + 25.5 ml in total. Therefore you can now convert the total number of grams acrylamide:bisacrylamide in 100 ml of solvent. (bromophenol blue is negligible in these calculations). Does that make sense?

I am not sure how much I can help. However, the concentration of acrylamide and bisacylamide are given as a ratio of mass to volume. For example, if I had 10% acrylamide then it means that 10 grams of acrylamide have been dissolved in 100ml of a solvent. If I have 8 ml of this acrylamide, can you now guess how much it contains? And if I now add suitable buffers to a new volume, I can then recalulate how much acrylamide and bisacrylamide there is in the final solution as grams per 100 ml of the new solution. I hope this makes sense.

I am merely an interested observer and not a knowledgeable person on the possible effects of global warming on the Thermohaline Circulation where heat is brought to Northern Europe. I have wondered if a disturbance of the THC (called AMOC in the following article) would lead to temperature differences in Northern Europe. The worst case scenario in a collapse could mean temperature drops of up to 9 Centigrade. Any comments or information from the better read on this topic? Link and also this downloaded article: Link to Article

I though the whole point of a Science Forum was to encourage, educate and enthuse ALL ages and ALL educational levels to understand the world around us and to turn out well informed members of the public who can appreciate the advances and sheer amazing nature of scientific discovery and the scientific method.... Yet the sneering tones and responses to a good simple question, by some of the contributors above, dismay me. That is not why I come to this Forum. If you want to show sarcasm and arrogance instead of a genuine wish to answer questions by doing some research first, then I am afraid you are revealing your own insecurities. This is OUR Forum, for the people who love their Science and are probably aged from 11 upwards. It is OUR right to ask simple questions because that is part of the mission statement of Science education. It is not the right of people to show arrogance to those of less knowledge.

Thank you for the contribution super ball. You have certainly hyper cross contextualised your information, which is an intelligent thing to do. However, correlation and causation are difficult to tell apart and I feel that you may also need more direct information about the increase in asthma. An evidential approach is necessary and can, IMHO, come from datamining information from a number of countries where the data is collected and then trends identified in a meta-analytical study. In short, the original article I cited, presented some of the following as possible reasons for exacerbating allergic symptoms in atopic (predisposed) individuals and suggested preventative measures: Link to OP Article At the same time sb, we also have to consider: a) age of the subject, b) health of the subject c) type of environmental pollutant d) concentration of environmental pollutant e) type of activity performed by the subject at time of onset of symptoms. Looking for a causation would include looking at the big picture and you have posited some very interesting scenarios concerning environmental changes, including increases in ground level ozone, presence of methane and natural gas. These are interesting examples of lateral and intelligent thinking but I would prefer a meta-analytical approach given the complexities of the variables above. Peace.

Look over my answer to your post before you get desperate. Try to look up dihybrid cross animations.

Rather than answering the question, please look over the following animation and all will become clear: Dihybrid cross

Thank you for the lucid and erudite explanation iNow. I also wondered about the brain mechanisms that occur when tears of sadness/frustration/anger/empathy are shed.

I was asked this question and could not answer it, to any real extent. Why do emotions lead to the crying response or to tears in the eyes? Are these responses the same in babies and adults? Which part of the brain is responsible? Partial answers and reference to papers welcomed.

I wonder if this is what you are getting at: polyphosphates If you are looking for this prokaryote energy source, then there is also a relevant oldie but goldie paper here: Polyphosphate paper If you do not understand parts of it, give a reply and we can help a little more. Good luck.

Cap'n, I know you are into Science education, as am I. However, do you favour the establishment of specialist Science colleges for students who love the subject and can spend all day studying it, or do you think we can turn out educated, critical thinking future members of the public from our current educational systems in the US and the UK?

Great question Maundy. I think you got the black leaves thing from Lovelock and Watson's hypothetical 'Daisyworld'. Daisyworld I wonder if it is possible that aquatic plants had chlorophyll and then, as some moved on to the land, the colour green was preserved in the chlorophyll? Long wavelengths (blue light etc...) are better asorbed in the water at reasonable depths, e.g. 1.0 m, at which about 45% of the available light will get through. How Light Penetrates Water It may be possible that this colour did not require further random selection.

I hope this is not homework you naughty, naughty boy! Link

From the findings, it appears that the presence of a grandmother is a highly important factor in infant survival as you correctly mention, and that genes for menopause would have been preserved in an evolutionary sense for the purpose of increased survival advantage. On a personal note, I would love to be a grandad at about 55 years old! It would be young enough to care and take part in the welfare of my grandchild, and old enough for a more mature world outlook. Link

I always knew that my granny was a great benefit to society and especially my family However, I could not put this on a measurable footing with a sensible hypothesis. Much to my surprise, I found the following article which underlines the importance of genetically defined onset of menopause: Cosmos So it seems that the menopause has a possible purpose after all but that the granny is essential to the survival of the young generation. Any thoughts?

There is absolutely no point in having a thread like this. Ultimately, deeply held beliefs do not normally allow for a proper, respectful debate where adherents of both 'sides' can agree to explore why science and religion are different at all. I am sorry that you feel that this thread deserves such a provocative title. I have felt that the success of this Religion sub-forum lies in the fact that debate is not commonly rancorous and does not often sink to the point of being a battle.

Well it would leave a lot more time for browsing on the Science Forum certainly, and Scotland would be a hell of a lot more peaceful at the weekends! Additionally, people would be forced to improve their fitness by turning to golf, football and other alternative activities. Maybe not a bad idea after all... I am suggesting that, if people drink moderately, they would be fine, and society would benefit from mentally and physically healthier individuals. Yet can we be certain that people would drink in moderation?

In my opinion, although there are some benefits to health. For example reduction of heart attacks and also ischemic strokes Clinic Link. However, the harm done outweighs the benefits. Statistics from my native country of 5 million people, Scotland, highlight the huge social and health damage that can result from not drinking in moderation. Some of the social costs are listed below, although the health hazards in the same publication are far more severe. SHAAP