jdurg

NaCl is out there in a VERY pure form in many caves, as are ammonium chloride and potassium nitrate.

Okay, thinking back it is tin iodide that is soluble in organic solvents. What you could do is take your tin/lead solder and dissolve into a nitric acid solution. When the entire bit of solder has dissolved, start adding potassium iodide to the solution. At first some HI may form, but eventually all of the tin and lead will form their insoluble iodides. Now you just filter the insoluble iodides and add it to some distilled water. In a separatory funnel, mix the water/iodide mixture with some organic solvent. The tin iodide should separate into the organic layer. Now just remove the organic layer and let it evaporate. You should now have pretty pure tin iodide which you can melt and electrolyze into tin metal and iodine. edited by me ya lazy git, don`t double post, use the EDIT button in future! LOL

If memory serves me right, isn't SnCl2 mostly covalent in terms of the bonding? I swear that I remember reading about how tin chloride is soluble in organic solvents. Is there anyway that you can take your tin/lead molten alloy and pass a stream of chlorine gas over it to convert everything into the chloride, then dissolve the mixture into an organic solvent. The lead chloride should remain insoluble in the organic phase while the tin chloride would readily dissolve. You then evaporate the organic phase which would leave you with relatively pure tin chloride. You could then melt the salt down and electrolyze it which should leave you with pure tin metal. (Then again, that could have been tin iodide that I was thinking of).

Yup. I remember the dart board analogy too. Best way to see the difference.

Biology and Chemistry would be the two I'd reccomend.

That's because they don't buy gas in a volume of 'one day's worth'. They buy large quantities of gas and sell it for the same price as long as they have 'that gas'. When that supply of gas runs out and they refill, then the price will go up. We seem to notice that the price goes up sooner than it goes down, but that's because when gas goes up at other places and one station still has their 'cheaper gas', people will go and fill up on the cheaper gas and it will soon run out. As a result, the owner buys more gas and now charges the higher price. When gas prices drop, the owners have to sell their more expensive gas before they refill and get the cheaper gas. The thing is, people don't want to buy the expensive gas so they don't run out of it as quickly.

I have a REALLY hard time believing that, and here's why. 19.5 pounds of CO2 is 8853 grams. Gasoline has a density of about 0.737 grams/mL, so one gallon of gasoline weighs about 2790 grams. If we assume that the combustion of gasoline is the same as the combustion of octane, we see that every mole of gas consumed produces 8 moles of carbon dioxide. If gas is mostly octane (Molecular weight is 106 g/mole), then for every 106 grams of gas you'll get 128 grams of CO2. Based upon this calculation, one gallon of gas would produce around 3375.9 grams of CO2. That's less than half of the amount that was stated. Now I do know that gasoline isn't just octane. It generally has shorter carbon chains in there like heptane and whatnot, so real gasoline would actually produce LESS than the 3.4 kilograms I had calculated. I would REALLY like to see the equations they used to come up with that 19.5 pound amount. Also, this is assuming 100% complete comubstion. We all know that automobile engines aren't 100% effective and a LOT of incomplete combusion goes on. So while I do not see the neccessity in having an SUV and think it's a waste of money, I do not understand how the 'anti-SUV' site came up with 19.5 pounds.

Hey guys. This past week I had some free time and decided to make some sodium iodide from my extra sodium metal and iodine. I photographed the entire experiment and have written an article for it at a website I help run. I thought I'd mention it to you guys here since we seem to have a lot of people here who like to do little experiments like this every now and then. The article can be found at this link which is the website I work at.

Also, once you've decomposed enough water, the remnant heat will cause some water to evaporate and pretty soon there won't be enough water left and current will cease to flow.

You can still buy it. Go to a pool supply store and you can get it by the kilogram quantity. Stuff is dirt cheap but great for making chlorine gas with it.

The problem is, stupid and ignorant people will always be stupid and ignorant. So telling people 'it's dangerous, don't do it' when the people see no real apparent danger isn't going to stop them. There will ALWAYS be a bunch of idiots who do stupid things and pay the ultimate price for it. It's sad, but it's the way it is. For the forecasting, the weather people do the best they can to predict these storms, but in reality there are so many things that drive the direction and intensity of the storm that it's damned near impossible to predict them. Even with all our scientific knowhow, we only have a mere few days before the hurricane hits before we know for sure that it will hit. Even then, it can suddenly change course and move in a completely different direction. If people are smart, they'll realize that they live in a hurricane prone area and take heed of the warnings and potential for damage. If you live in the midwest, you should be aware of tornados and what they can do. If you live along the Mississippi you should be aware of the possibility of flooding. If you live along the gulf coast or atlantic coast, you should be aware of hurricanes. All the begging and pleading and warning and other stuff that goes on around a hurricane strike isn't going to change the mindset of those who chose to live in that area but refused to accept the fact that everything can be lost overnight.

On the bright side, the center of the storm moved a bit further east and has made landfall EAST of New Orleans. As a result, I think New Orleans got spared a little bit. In addition, the storm did what I was hoping it would do and stalled a little bit just offshore before making landfall. This allowed it to weaken a little bit due to friction of the feeder bands with the land. The area is still getting rocked by this, but it's not going to be the cataclysmic disaster that was initially thought. What saddens me a bit, however, is that the center of the storm has moved closer to where my friend lives in MS. (He lives basically right on the MS/LA border).

My best friend, who is getting married in December, lives on the MS/LA border. I haven't been able to get in touch with him for a while, and I just pray that he and his family survive this thing. (I'd call to see if he's okay, but for the next few days I want to keep lines open for the emergency personnel in the area). I think it's still too early to say that a city is going to be 'wiped away'. With storms like these you just never know what's going to happen. I just pray that it slows up before making landfall as this will weaken it quickly, and that once it makes landfall it accelerates out of there. I was planning to go down for my best friend's wedding this December in New Orleans, but now I don't know if there will be a place for me to go.

Those are the same allotropes as their solid forms.

Allotropes can ONLY be of a single, solitary element. There is no such thing as allotropes of molecules. Those are called isomers. Moosie - there are two types of bonding. One is intramolecular bonding and that is what is responsible for keeping a molecule together. If you break the intramolecular bonding, you destroy the molecule. Intermolecular bonding is what attracts molecules to each other. Think of intramolecular bonding as the concrete that makes up a building, and intermolecular bonding as the suspension bridge that connects the two buildings. If you break the bridge, you still have the original buildings as they are. If you break the concrete, those buildings don't exist anymore. So when I'm saying 'bonding', I'm really talking about the concrete and not the bridge. Allotropes are also pretty much isolated to solids as well. I really don't know of any liquid allotropes since you really can't get a 'structure' out of a liquid.

An allotrope is when you have the same ELEMENT but with a different physical structure to it. As soon as you move onto more complex structures involving different elements in a molecule, the term 'allotrope' no longer applies. Instead you get 'isomers' or 'phases'. (Phases is if the structure is the same but the angles and whatnot are different. Isomers are when the formula is the same, but the structure is vastly different). When H2O changes from ice to water, you are NOT changing ANY of the bonds involved. The only things that are changing are the intermolecular bonding of the molecules, not the intramolecular bonding. With ice, there is a rigid structure to the hydrogen bonding since the individual water molecules don't have enough energy to break free. As the temperature increases, the molecules are able to break free and slide past each other which gives us the form known as water. With graphite and diamond, the intramolecular bonding is vastly different. When you go from graphite to diamond, you have to break the chemical bonds between each of the carbon atoms. This is much different than just breaking the intermolecular attractions between them. A good analogy would be if you have two people holding hands. When you go from ice to water, it's like putting a broomstick between their hands and making them break apart. You're not really changing the physical structure of the combination, you're just separating them. Now changing graphite to diamond would be like taking a laser beam and cutting off their arms and then rearranging the severed appendages. In this case, you're making severe changes to the physical structure of the pair.

And if that were in the USA, the poor girl would now have to pay an insane amount of taxes on that car. The taxes would be so great that she'd probably have to sell the car in order to afford the taxes she owes. I HATE the friggen 'gift tax'. >

I think a lot of people also forget that the drug companies have to pay a lot of individuals for very different things. They have to pay the janitors, the security guards, the chemists, the board members, the accountants, the marketing department, the electricians, the plumbers, the companies that they use to handle their data, etc. etc. A pharmaceutical company has a lot more costs than many people seem to realize. Also, putting a drug out to market isn't a simple 'Looky what I made. Here FDA, let me start putting this out'. Drug research takes a looooooooooooooooooong time to do, and all that time takes money. The company first has to make the drug, then test it on animal species to see if it has any widespread dangers, then get approval to test on a small number of humans, then get approval to test on a larger number of people, then get approval to test on a long term scale, then get approval to test on a massive scale, then get approval to produce the drug in mass quantities and sell to the public, then continue testing the drug for the extra long term efficacy and toxicity of it. A full development of a drug can take close to 20 years or so. Also, you have to very carefully analyze every piece of data to see if drug A is causing condition B, or if drug A is being used to treat condition B, but is causing Condition C to completely cure. (As an example, when Viagra was first produced, it was produced to treat heart disease and cardiovascular problems. It was during the initial testing that they discovered all these male patients were now able to get erections. Still, they had to finish the heart trials and prove that the drug was safe before they could get permission to start the erection trials). I work for a CRO which works with investigational drug data on a daily basis. I cannot get into any details about what exactly I'm doing as a result of confidentiality agreements with our customers, but what I can say is that the general public really has no idea what goes on with the development of a drug and what all the associated costs are.

I still truly believe that if you are 'going out' with someone just for the sake of going out with them, then you are doing yourself and your date a major dis-service. I guess when you're young (Under 21) it's a bit different as everybody goes out just for a social status. But when you're older like myself (25. Good god did I just say 25 was older?) you go out with someone for their companionship and their brain more than their 'booty'. I am a very single person but I am not a lonely person. Sure there are times where I say 'I really wish I had a girlfriend I could just lie next to', but those instances are VERY rare and usually when I'm pretty drunk and have nobody to go home to. Right now I just stay single because it's easier for me. I'm trying to find myself a place to live, and while having a spouse makes that a LOT easier, the money spent trying to find that 'special someone' would be better put towards purchasing a home. I also have many hobbies that I truly love which keep me happy and content. (My baseball cards, my element collection, golfing, poker, spending time with my friends, doing random things, etc. etc.) The stuff I put in my blog (http://jdurg.blogspot.com) is pretty much my life at the moment. I don't purposely try to avoid people, but I just don't have the motivation to go and get involved. Sure I occasionally notice when a woman looks at me in a certain way, but I'm just not prepared to go forward yet. I think things will change once I'm able to finally afford my own place. Living at home still is really completely depressing and puts a HUGE strain on your 'social life with women', but that will hopefully change next year.

Mine is simple as well; I don't want to be in a relationship. I enjoy being with myself and hanging out with my friends and not having to be responsible for anyone but myself. I like going out and doing things that you just really can't do if you have a girlfriend. I also HATE going to bars. If I want to get drunk, I'm going to do it at my own place or when hanging out with my guy friends. I don't want to have to try and pull myself together in order to 'get with a girl'. If a girl wants to talk to me, then fine, she can talk to me all she wants. I'm not going to turn her away, but at the same time I'm not going to chase after her. The times I have gone out with a girl, I did so not because I wanted to get into her pants, but because her personality fit in so well with me. So if I had to make a list of reasons why I'm single, this would be it; 1): I like being alone. 2): It's cheaper that way. 3): I don't want to have to change who I am just to impress someone. If they like me, they'll like me for who I am, not for who I can act like. 4): I hate going to bars and clubs and whatnot. 5): I'm not about to make a girl feel awkward by asking her out in odd situations. (Like when with her friends, with her parents, at a gas station, etc. If I ask a girl out, it's generally when we're already on a date). 6): I'm not the type of person who wants to have sex on that first date, so I'm not going to go out of my way to try and get into her bed. Sadly, many girls these days only think about having sex on that first date and can't handle a guy who's takes things slowly. 7): I recently turned 25, and many of the girls my age now have children. I can barely be responsible enough to keep myself out of trouble, so how can I be responsible enough to deal with children? 8): I have no urge to find that right woman right now. Eventually it may happen, but if not I'm not going to cry about it.

For oxygen, you can always just go to a hardware store and grab a huge bottle of it. I know this is probably really stupid, but when I was a bit younger (Okay, maybe only five or six years ago) and my friends and I would do a lot of strenuous activities, we'd get one of those oxygen cylinders and breathe in a little bit afterwards to prevent cramping later on. lol. I'm not sure how effective it was, but I sure did feel better afterwards. Anyway, a fun way I found for producing hydrogen is with a sodium/lead alloy. With a bunch of spare lead shot and some sodium metal, make a mixture of about 15% Na and the rest lead by volume. It's easy to melt this down, and it stays relatively stable. When you put it in water, however, it will bubble off hydrogen gas as all the sodium reacts slowly with water. It's pretty neat to see.

Actually, the anhydrous copper sulfate isn't that bad of an idea since the water molecules are chemically and physically trapped into the crystal structure of the salt. Same can be said for the cobalt compounds that absorb water. The only problem is that you don't want any of that Co remaining in your ethanol.