Jules7890

I know that one hydrogen atom is one angstrom, but how big would it be with two oxygen atoms attached to it? There's a question on my textbook's website about it.

I have an essay question asking me why consumption of lots of coffee, tea, or water while a patient is taking a drug could cause the drug to lose its effectiveness more quickly. Does anyone know? I know it has to do with drugs being excreted in the urine, but I don't understand why increasing the volume of urine would make the drug go through someone's system more quickly. Do the kidneys flush out someone's bloodstream more quickly when there is a higher volume of urine? I'm confused, and I'm not sure if I'm wording my questionn very well.

thanks. (and it didn't happen to make any difference that it was an ionized phosphate group, right? Not just phosphate by itself?)

The wording of the question is: "Which of the functional groups behaves as a base?" (.... btw, why do the italicized words beside your name describe your name? I thought that was just kind of a ranking system)

I have this multiple choice question asking me which functional group is a base, an amino group (NH2) or a phosphate group (PO4-) It says the answer is the amino group, and I get that NH2 would accept a hydrogen ion to become ammonia, but I don't understand why a phosphate group wouldn't. .... when I don't understand something, I obsess over it, so bear with me here ... A phosphate group seems like a perfect candidate to accept H+, right?? I mean, in its ionized state. It's got TWO perfectly good negatively charged oxygen atoms with only one bond each sitting there, just asking for a proton, so why does my answer key tell me a phosphate group isn't a base?? Does anyone know? (thank you for any help beforehand)

I'm not sure if it's exactly the same experience ... I wouldn't exactly classify my experiences as "terrifying", but I was a little scared at the time. It used to happen often when I was a smoker, so I attributed it to poor circulation, and I still think that was a factor. I remember being just about to fall asleep when all of a sudden I felt a numbness in my feet, and although I was aware of where I was, I couldn't move or speak. I think I did manage to call someone's name, though. Anywho, I did kind of have a half-dream at the same time, that I was being levitated out of my bed and spun around in the air. (during the dream, I was sure it was aliens ) I can understand why that sort of thing might cause rumors of alien abductions. but omg you have quite the story there, demonslayer! I kind of wish something like that would happen to me. (but no one would believe me )

But with only three electrons being shared, how can an atom that had 4 valence electrons have a full 8-electron shell ??

I'm confused about the structural formula of carbon monoxide. I was taught that carbon always needed to have four bonds, so now I'm confused ... I might sound clueless, but I didn't even know there was such a thing as a triple covalent bond. Wikipedia shows the structural formula with three bonds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide I'm assuming I misunderstood my teacher when I thought he said it always had 4 ... But my question is, wouldn't CO be really unstable if it had only three covalent bonds?

I doubt they were trying for that one, John Cuthber. The one on the webpage is missing an oxygen. But that is really interesting ... I wish I knew what the significance was!! They probably just want to confuse nerds.

Oh yeah. ..... I don't know much about quantum mechanics, but I know what you're getting at. I guess the particles' motion in hot matter is kind of random and doesn't have a direction, so that makes sense now that I think harder about it ... but the heat is still governed by physical laws. Saying that heat is random just because the particles vibrate somewhat randomly is like saying that the chemical energy in atoms is random because the electrons move randomly. And that pretty much covers all energy, doesn't it? Plus, the concept that entropy is continuously growing means that heat energy is impossible to convert, which I find hard to believe.

I read about the second law of thermodynamics just yesterday, and I HATE the concept of entropy. My textbook says that entropy is the disordered energy (or heat, right? does it only include heat?) in a system. It gave me this formula: G = H - TS which is supposed to mean: Free energy = Total energy - (Temperature in K)(Entropy) But how would a scientist quantitatively measure entropy to use this equation? Or is the equation just a way of explaining the concept and not meant to be used? Anyways, what really pisses me off is the fact that they describe "entropy" as "disorder" or "randomness", when I always thought scientists would know better than to use words like that. Isn't the study of science based on the concept that nothing is random? Heat energy is just another form of kinetic energy, and it's governed by the same strict physical laws as everything else, so what makes it so "random"? And has anyone ever tried to harness that energy? I bet it would be possible.