Amaton

That makes sense. It also explains why we need special (and relatively expensive) chemicals to break it down instead of water-based cleaners. http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/sustainability/archive/news-a-greener-chewing-gum.html "The latest news about nonadhesive chewing gum comes from University College Cork (Ireland). In early November, the university announced that Elke Arendt and her research team at the School of Food and Nutritional Sciences developed and patented a nonstick, biodegradable chewing gum from cereal proteins. Professor Arendt says that their product tastes and feels like the synthetic products, but it safely dissolves in your mouth after 45 minutes. Tossed-out gum is easily picked up or swept away. Although the manufacturing technology for this gum is completely different from current processes, several companies are interested in its possibilities." I'm sure Disney World, Six Flags, and all big cities are also interested in the idea.

I don't remember any specific news about Muslim extremists against London as there is now with Russia. I'm sure there was at least one plan plotted against the events, especially with something as big as London. If one was attempted, then it never came to fruition. All it takes is just a single lunatic, like in Atlanta, but Russia is already threatened by organized terrorism.

Really, no one? It's just a matter of what's going on chemically between the gum and rubber material.

With all the recent news of terrorist threats, I'm thinking back to London 2012, Canada 2010, and China 2008. Why did it seem like these events never had so much of an issue with security? Was I just unaware of pre-game news for these places, or are there particular reasons that Sochi, Russia is a target? I'm thinking it has to do more with Russia itself?

From the Wikipedia article on Chewing gum... "It is extremely difficult and expensive to remove once "walked in" and dried. Gum bonds strongly to asphalt and rubber shoe soles because they are all made from polymeric hydrocarbons. It also bonds strongly with concrete paving." So what exactly is this bonding between polymeric hydrocarbons? From my little general chemistry knowledge, I would guess a type of intermolecular force. A typical person would never guess the annoyingness of stuck gum would have anything to do with chemistry (then again, everything has something to do with chemistry). Just curious.

What do you mean by "the number differs"? The way we represent a number in writing changes between different bases, but the actual value of the number does not. You may be asking something else, though, in which case, please correct me.

I haven't bothered to watch the whole video, but maybe this is one of those "hoaxes", a well-presented gag to see how the audience reacts -- like dihydrogen monoxide.

In my opinion, it's best to ignore any such claim made by a company wanting to sell its product. When science is involved in advertising, the propaganda method tends to be fear, and that's when truth becomes of secondary to negligible priority. You should cross-check the claim with information from a reliable (scientific) source, though this particular topic may not be so well documented. At best for something... Water chlorination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This should essentially be an effusion-rate problem. I know the equation is [math]\dfrac{r_x}{r_y}=\sqrt{\dfrac{M_y}{M_x}}[/math], where [math]r[/math] is the rate of effusion and [math]M[/math] is molar mass. I know [math]M_{Ar}=39.95[/math] g and the effusion rate for arsenic(III) sulfide is [math]r=.28r_{Ar}[/math]. Therefore, [math]\dfrac{r_{Ar}}{0.28r_{Ar}}=\sqrt{\dfrac{M}{39.95g}}[/math]. I'm trying to find [math]M[/math]. After the math, I get [math]M=509.6[/math] g (to 4 significant figures). The closest working ratio for the arsenic compound seems to be two formula units, As4S6. This is the textbook answer. However, this molar mass is [math]492.04[/math] g, a bit far off from my answer. Why? Did I go about this wrong?

Thanks guys. I was only thinking about a real argument in the square root, but now I also know something about the complex function. It would have to be what? I can't tell what you're arguing for.

Is [math]z^{\frac{1}{2}}[/math] equivalent to the principal square root or the plus-minus square root?

[math]\log_5 (x-1)+\log_5 (x-2)-\log_5 (x+6)=0[/math] There are probably more efficient ways, but the first thing I thought of doing was... [math]5^{\log_5 (x-1)+\log_5 (x-2)-\log_5 (x+6)}=5^0[/math] Take 5 to the power of both sides. After some simplification... [math]\frac{(x-1)(x-2)}{x+6}=1[/math] From there, you can bring out the denominator to the other side and rearrange the equation into standard quadratic form.

If no one here can answer, then ask an appropriate instructor/professor. Nonetheless, you can attempt to draw parallels from the English equivalents of those formulae. However, some ambiguity remains with the uncertainty.

Not exactly. If you see that a particular substance is "aqueous", then you should assume that the substance is actually in solution, more specifically an aqueous solution (i.e. the solvent is water). Whether or not something "can / cannot / maybe so" dissolve in water has to do with different terminology. It's like the three common states of matter. Typically in a lab, you're not going to talk about whether a sample of water could be frozen, liquid, or gaseous. You want to know its actual state, what form it's in. Likewise, if a substance is completely dissolved in water, then you have water molecules separating and surrounding the particles of that substance. You can't really say whether the substance itself is in solid, liquid, or gas phase. None of those three terms really describe a kind of state where you have individual particles freely floating around in solution, so we say it's aqueous if the solvent is water.