Elite Engineer

The answer is "C", because the electrons on the carbon of the attacking base are directly adjacent to the carboxyl group, permitting this base exist due to stability via the carboxyl group. In short, the strong base in C is the only base that would actually exist, permitting the specific product. ~EE

I wouldn't say it's a benefit because it releases dopamine/endorphins though, there are plenty of other ways to release dopamine/endorphins...and its more of a neutral result. However, excessive masturbation really should be avoided, as it has been proven to make intercourse more difficult, as it raises your "tolerance" for climax.

Yea, this has been a longtime practice..like XalatN said, beginning with E.coli making insulin in the mid 1970's. The DNA (for the most part) is all the same. Some species of bacteria have really strong, continuous promoters that can be used for consistent protein synthesis. ~EE

Pour the gel into the tray, then place the comb in the gel..remove the comb. That's how I've always done it. I think its just better to pour gel, then comb instead of the other way around..I guess just an industry standard. ~EE

Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism 6th Edition, by Sareen Gropper...used this book in my ES 402 Exercise Nutrition class...I liked it..dropped the course half-way through though, didn't need the class after all. http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-Gropper/dp/1133104053 ~EE

Darn..further down the rabbit hole. So if people had sex, will there be one instance of pregnancy..or is this too limited by classical stats?

It's not even that..it's the fact that I want to live the life I want for myself...I just finished school and want to LIVE..not change diapers and get up at 4:30 am every morning to feed a crying baby. I thought this was the point of assessing probability is "risky" situations. You take a scenario, run the probability of the potential risk, and make a decision. So, regardless, more sex = increase in probability even with 99% effectiveness...I guess this makes sense.

I dont have the financial stability or time to raise a newborn.

So, this pertains to a somewhat personal issue, but I have been freaking out over the possibility of my girlfriend's birth control malfunctioning. I'm worried because, though it's said that BC is 99% effective, there is a 1% chance of pregnancy. So, is there a law of probability that says in the occurrence of a scenario, that the 1% possibility HAS/WILL to happen? I doubt I'd be the unlucky 1% over the course of a month..but think of the amount of intercourse over a 10 year period using BC. You're going to have to be that 1% eventually, right? ~EE

I just scrolled down and saw "I suppose you mean something like this" and saw the cyclohexane and just cracked up

The first reagent is a strong anion that attacks one of the carbons in the epoxide molecule, opening up the epoxide molecule. The other 2 steps should be fairly easy to take from this. ~EE

But that's when you quantify entropy. In theory, isn't the dissolution of KCl and CaSO4 still an increase in entropy. The difference in the quantified entropy just may be due to a slight difference in the amount of dissolved ions in solution.

Wow, I couldn't have thought of a more straight answer. I guess we really don't think about this stuff, especially with Dicaprio and Winslet. Are we talking just hollow cavities or entire bodies...I can't imagine the goriness of the well dressed 20th century chaps just being obliterated...

I checked a random site without checking reputable sources So, only hollow body structures like you say, lungs and cavities would have collapsed? Meanwhile more solid body structure like bones would be intact?

So, as the Titanic sunk, and began it's 15 minute plunge to the ocean floor of the Atlantic, do you suppose the bodies that were trapped in the ship actually exploded due to the extreme pressure? Consider where the Titanic now rests, the pressure is about 6,500 atmospheres. As it sank and the pressure gradually increased, is it possible the bodies ruptured? ~EE

You haven't lived till you've seen a seedling blow up

To say the salt dissolves via ion interaction is just an abbreviated explanation of thermodynamics. Saying it dissolves via increased entropy is "technically" the correct way, but warrants a lengthy explanation..here goes: The structure of a salt crystal is highly organized, and stable. In contrast, the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that, in a transfer of energy, the entropy of the system will increase, or..."there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state". In laymen's terms, entropy is the measure of disorder of a system. This increase in disorder is favored in part because it facilitates energy transfer, and therefore entropy is always increasing in the universe. Think about why gasoline ignites under heat. What's more disordered..a liquid or a gas? A gas is more disordered, and therefore why gasoline (and other volatile substances) ignite when heated, because the process of entropy is favored. Now onto the salt dissolving in water. The crystal is highly organized and stable..which is in direct contrast to the 2nd law. When submerged in water, the crystal structure breaks apart, changing from an organized state, to a more disorganized state..i.e. increase in entropy. Yes entropy can be quantified..but that's a whole other conversation. If your interested, check out "Gibbs Free Energy". ~EE

So ozone is produced? How stable is the ozone molecule though?

I've heard this also produces ozone..but I dont really see how or why

So, if you split a grape and leave just enough where the skin is attached, and place it in the microwave it sparks, its on Youtube if you haven't seen it. Lots of people say this is plasma, which i think is actually incorrect. Does the grape spark because of the specific conditions with the ski still attached, causing an arc. Is the arc generated via the water and sugars being heated and essentially "arcing" over the grape? I think it's just these specific conditions like make this happen..much like when you crush peppermints in the dark, you see a glimpse of light due to the material on the peppermints... -or I could be wrong too.. ~EE

So, then one could say: With a force applied to an object, ↓ in area of the moving object = ↑ in the magnitude force of "penetration" the object has on a secondary object... ( not being 'dirty')... ~EE

Suppose you have a watermelon. You gently push the round head of a pin against the watermelon, and nothing happens. Then you turn the pin around and gently push the pointed end against the watermelon, and the pin penetrates the surface of the watermelon. Or how about the blade of a knife penetrating a watermelon relative to the round side of a stick. -How can this be defined relative to a physics standpoint? Objects with less surface area are able to move mass more effectively rather than an object with more surface area, granted they have the same force applied. Essentially, the pin is "moving" mass when it penetrates the skin of the watermelon. ~EE

With oil dropping to $30/barrel..and possibly dipping lower, is there pretty much no hope for alternative fuels? With gas being near $2.00 a gallon, I don't see any infrastructure being laid out for AF use/ research. I'm a big advocate for AF and this makes me sad. Thoughts? ~EE

They look correct to me.

is it because of the short alkyl chain on the alcohols that allow it to wedge into the cell membrane, thereby causing dissolution?