jdurg

KOH can be electrolyzed easily. Just not in an aqueous environment. If you melt anhydrous KOH, you can electrolyze it to produce potassium metal.

Elemental Iodine is another good example. It will only form a liquid at an elevated local pressure. (I say local, because I had a large mass of iodine which was heated by a normal butane torch in a glass tube. As the heat was applied, there was rapid sublimation followed by the formation of liquid iodine. There was plenty of iodine there to see how it turned into a viscous liquid. REALLY neat to see. I didn't expect that to happen, but I guess the pressure at the surface of the iodine was high enough due to all the sublimated [math]{I_2}[/math]).

If you'd like, I could put some anhydrous acetic acid on your skin. It wouldn't feel that good at all. At high concentrations, it's still pretty potent. (Like phosphoric acid is).

No Problem. At one point, I tried to add in "+ KA-FREAKING-BOOM!!!!!!!!" to the equation, but it didn't like it for some reason and kept saying 'unspecified' error. So I just decided to leave it out.

[math]\ce{2Cs_{(s)} + 2H2O_{(l)} -> 2H2_{(g)} + 2Cs+_{(aq)} + 2OH-_{(aq)}}[/math] VERY cool!

Hehe. Well, when you start getting really good at playing poker, you suddenly have some spare money that just cries out 'spend me'. I consider the PGMs my reward to myself for playing proper poker. With the Ir and Ru, they are nice and shiny but the photos have a hard time picking it up. It's just that the Os, Ag, Pd, Re, and Au are INCREDIBLY shiney so they seem to stand out a bit more. With all the vials next to each other, it takes up a bunch of space and I only have one overhead light for the lighting. If you look closely at the Ru, you can see the reflection of the smaller bead on the larger button. That smaller bead is incredibly reflective as well. The larger the sizes of the buttons, the more difficult it is to get a uniform 'shinyness' on the piece. Collector, that's a neat little bit of info about Re. I was unaware that Re had that property. I do know that the property exists for Rubidium. In fact, if you take an ampoule of Rb and place it next to some unexposed film for a month or so, when you develop the film you'll see a hazy picture of the Rb ampoule. I've actually done this and it's pretty amazing. It takes some time, but Rb is fairly radioactive due to the large presence of Rb-87.

Splenda is not saccharin. Splenda is sucralose and is just a sugar molecule where the -OH groups have been replaced with Cl atoms. It's actually VERY amazing how simply replacing an -OH group with a Cl atom will make the compound just as sweet, but not be metabolized in the same manner.

I've found that when battling the common cold or a sinus infection, lots of vitamin C and some Zinc supplements really cut back on the length of the illness. They don't necessarily cut back on the intensity, but instead of being sick for 7-8 days I wind up being sick for 3-4.

But really, is removing the tube techincally 'killing' her? I have always believed that to 'kill' something, you need to do something to end their life. It's not like they put KCl or Cyanide into her blood stream. They just removed the feeding tube. I don't consider that 'killing'. I would classify that as 'allowing to die'. I think there's a huge difference between the two terms.

I have really never bought into the 'artificial sweetners' are bad for you hype. Being a Type 1, Insulin-dependent-diabetic, I've been using artificial sweetners for the past 23 years now. (Got the condition when I was 2). I drink MASSIVE amounts of diet soda on a daily basis and ingest splenda, aspartame, saccharin, etc. in large quantities. There is nothing wrong with me. You can go ahead and say 'just wait until later in life when you become a walking tumor', and I just ignore them. This stuff does not cause cancer. Looking at the data, I have yet to see any confirmative proof that any cancers developed by people were a direct result of artificial sweetners. The only 'proof' they've come up with is because they gave lab rats nearly half their body weight in the stuff and the rats became ill. If you give ANYTHING half its body weight of ANYTHING, they will almost certainly get ill.

Dave Hamric is a GREAT source of elements. I met him through E-Bay when I purchased some selenium from him and then we got to talking through e-mail. As a result, I have purchased a lot of elements from him. His website www.elementsales.com has virtually anything you could want. He is currently working on melting and ampouling the alkali metals inside argon sealed containers so that people can purchase a 'forever shiney' piece of sodium, lithium, and potassium. He's shown me some progress and I have to say that it's turning out great. Dave is also a great seller because he can custom make any size sample you want. If you want a one-pound lump of Osmium, provided that you have the funds to do this, he can get it made for you if you give him some time. Because of some 'extra pay' I received at work and from playing cards, I recently submitted an order for a 50-gram Rhenium button and a Troy Ounce Ruthenium button. Those should arrive today. Can't wait to see them. Now I just need one-ounce buttons of osmium, rhodium, and platinum and I'll have an ounce of every PGM. (Hell, I'd even go with just 20 more grams of Rhodium. I've already got one nice-sized 11 gram nugget).

Another thing is that the Bi would have to successfully capture the alpha particle in order to form At. It's not all that easy to do so, and because of the low half-life it would be pretty difficult to generate a massive quantity of At at any one time. (Unless of course you had some type of moderator to slow things down a bit).

There are many, many, many viable reasons for purchasing HNO3. The photography industry uses a lot of it to clean plates and whatnot, anybody who does home gold refining will need it as well. There are plenty of valid reasons to buy it. Now if you buy it along with conc. sulfuric acid, some phenol/toluene/glycerine, then you'll be watched. ;-)

Above potassium are lithium and sodium. Both of those react less vigorously than potassium does and are completey stable elements. (I.E. their radioactive isotopes are man-made, or exist in such small quantities that they basically don't exist). Any element with an atomic number less than 84 is non-radioactive. (Except number 43 and 61, technetium and promethium. They're just weirdos. ) I think you might be thinking of Francium which is the first alkali metal with no stable isotopes. The most francium ever made at one time is about 200,000 atoms, and it's half-life is about 22 seconds, I believe. In terms of reactivity with water, I can guarantee you that you'd see absolutely no difference betwen Fr, Cs, and Rb in terms of reaction intensity and rate. Even with Rb and Cs it's very difficult to see any difference due to how quickly it all reacts. At that point, it's like trying to tell the difference between touching a 4000 degree piece of metal and a 5000 degree piece of metal. Both metals are much hotter than you can detect a difference in.

Very true. Again, a clone would be exactly like an identical twin. I know plenty of identical twins are they are VERY individual even though their DNA is exactly the same.

Absolutely not. Buffers work based upon the equillibrium of a weak acid/base and their dissociation into anions and cations. Hydrochloric acid dissociates fully into hydrogen ions and chloride ions in solution. Therefore, there is no equillibrium to speak of. With the acetic acid/acetate buffer, when you put acetic acid in solution an equillibrium develops betwen the undissociated acid and the acetate/hydrogen ions. If you add acetate salt to that equillibrium, you alter the concentrations a bit. Adding some acid to the solution will cause some acetic acid to form as the hydrogen ions attach to the acetate ions. Equillibrium will then occur and you'll see that the pH changes either very slightly or not at all. If you add a base to this buffer, it will pull a hydrogen atom off of the acetic acid and form water and the acetate salt. Again, an equillibrium will shift to compensate for the change in acid concentration. Once more the pH will remain constant. With an HCl and NaCl setup, adding an acid will not cause the Cl- ions to reform HCl. The equillibrium does not really exist for that. Adding a base will cause the HCl to form water and the chloride salt. The non-existant equillibrium will not move and there will be no 'buffer' action.

As a Type I, Insulin Dependent Diabetic, I am 100% for the cloning of organs as replacements. As I get older, my kidneys won't function like they normally should and I will most likely end up dying because of kidney failure no matter how well I control my diabetes. By having a cloned kidney available, I could avoid the premature death due to renal failure. Also, a new pancreas could be cloned for me to not only remove my diabetes for the time being, but to provide a great deal of research into the cause of the disease as my immune system would probably want to kill the islet cells once more. Science could then see what it is that triggers the autoimmune response leading to Type I IDDM. For the person who said it was not what God would want, what if I don't believe in God? How come your beliefs and opinions are right and mine are not? If you believe that the cloning of organs for therapeutic reasons is wrong, then when you are dying from hepatic necrosis you can just refuse to accept a cloned organ. That's your perogitive. How is my acception of a new kidney, or pancreas, or liver created from my own cells and NOT yours going to affect you? If you're right and I'm wrong, then fine. I'll burn in hell for enternity. But we don't know who is right about this religious stuff and I will not have my life controlled by someone's 'opinions and beliefs' without any hard evidence. This is what drives me so crazy about people who are religiously fanatic. Why can't they mind their own business in relation to things that have absolutely no effect on their lives? (Therapeutic cloning, assisted suicides, gay marriages, etc. etc.). Sorry for being off-topic. For therapeutic clonining I am 100% for it. I think it can help so many people return or experience what a 'normal' life is. For reproductive cloning, I see absolutely no possible benefits of it; only drawbacks. Besides, that would kind of take all the fun out of human reproduction.

Sodium carbonate will decompose upon heating. You have to be under the proper environment, however. (Performing the heating under a vacuum is the best way to accomplish this so that you can remove the CO2 as it is forming).

Production of singlet oxygen through hydrogen peroxide decomposition and chlorine gas. Mixture of chlorine gas bubbles and acetylene gas bubbles underwater. Ignition of White Phopshorus absorbed onto paper via dissolution in CS2. Formation of sodium chloride via sodium metal and chlorine gas. Formation of hydrogen chloride gas via the light initiated reaction between chlorine and hydrogen. Formation of water via a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and the introduction of a warm platinum wire. Reduction of mercuric oxide into oxygen gas and mercury droplets. Oxidation of the Br- ion to elemental bromine via chlorine gas. Reduction of copper oxide to copper metal via heating in a hydrogen atmosphere. Formation of liquid oxygen by placing liquid nitrogen in a non-insulated metal cup. Flowing oxygen gas through a liquid nitrogen cooled trap and collecting the blue-colored liquid oxygen, then pouring it through a magnet and watching it stick to the poles of the magnet before boiling away. Burning magnesium ribbon then hammering onto dry ice and seeing the reaction increase dramatically. God there are so many more that I'm trying to remember.

LMFAO. Quote of the month!

Heh, that's the exact site I used for all of my information YT. You're right, gunpowder and flash powder are NOT High Explosives, but they are technically classified as explosive mixtures/compounds. So as for high explosives, gunpowder and flash powder are definitely not high explosives; they are low explosives, but they definitely meet the requirements needed to call something an explosive. The link you provided fully backs this up. So until you can provide a source link which states that gunpowder and flashpowder are DEFINITIVELY not an explosive, I simply cannot accept your argument.

With the sciences, I think a lot of that is because you really need to work in the lab as well as in the lecture hall to get the full grasp of the material. If the student is under 18, then the University has to go through a lot more effort to get all of the liability release forms and permissions to allow the "minor" to work in the labs with all those chemicals. It's basically a CYA maneuver from the college. They don't have to worry about someone getting hurt in a literature class, but in an organic chemistry lab they sure do. (Even when you're 18+ you have to sign a bunch of forms before taking your chem labs.)

BTW, here's a pretty informative link about what the ATF classifies as explosives. Our favorite nitrogen tri-iodide is listed there.

KMnO4 + Glycerine. I forgot about that one. It's a good one. It's up there with solid iodine and aluminum powder + water.