Elite Engineer

So I tried freezing it and so far: -The oils on the surface appeared to freeze with the water. -The oil under the water was IMPOSSIBLE to extract as it was much more viscous and hard to reach. So right now, I'm thinking about ordering more hexane. Unless any of you seasoned chemists know few tricks.

No centrifuge, its just a liquid-liquid extraction

So now I have to ask another question. -Is evaporating water off the best low budget technique to extract the oil? -And John, I have no access to butane except for in a pressurized spray can to fill up zippo lighters.

a couple of Erlenmeyer flasks, ranging from 25-250 mL, a few transfer pipettes, beakers 25-300 mL, and a separatory funnel. I just used up the last of my hexane I was hoping I didn't have to use any solvents for this :/ -Any help would be greatly appreciated! is that an alternator? (lol) I made one from an old air conditioner, but I dropped it one day and the shaft bent and wouldn't spin anymore. I'm not sure if centrifuging liquids would really help tho

dont have one

I distilled some cloves for clove oil extraction. Whats the best method for obtaining the oil? -"dry out" the solution with salt - freeze the solution (not sure how this would work b/c eugenol is more dense than water) ~EE

Are you referring to gluconeogensis? All I remember is phosphoenolpyruvate is dephosphorylated into pyruvate. The exact regulation of PK I'm not sure.

As far as the expense cost of charging, I've only heard from people who know people, and/or the argument that charging an electric car doesn't really change the harm on the environment.

I hear alot of issues with electric cars is that they lack long distance traveling ( less than or equal to an ICE), or that charging them can be expensive. Is there a design that charges the car as it moves? For instance, a generator attached to one of the wheels that isn't connected to the drive train. This way as the car moves, the battery is constantly being recharged, like an alternator. -Of course by my luck this already exists and I look like a moron now ~EE

Thanks!

Would NaCl suffice or would ammonium sulfate or magnesium sulfate be necessary?

So, I'm making biodiesel. I try to separate out the newly formed esters from the glycerol and salts by adding water to a test tube, then the biodiesel on top. I VERY gently invert the tube once or twice, and keep getting a emulsion forming. The solution is completely golden yellow and very translucent. Once gently mixed it all becomes a cream color and cloudy. How else can I remove glycerol? I tried ethanol but the esters are pretty miscible in it.

I support GMO's. I believe they're safe and I have not found any groundbreaking research that states otherwise. -I haven't read any papers or articles on specifically why David Suzuki and also Bill Nye oppose GMO's. I haven't heard them reference ant reputable journals to support their argument. ~ee

bowl without salt will evaporate first. No reason to go into complex diagrams or explanations here

I regularly melt down aluminum cans into ingots to make fun little designs and what not. Is it safe to handle aluminum ingots or is there any risk of aluminum toxicity, like Tin or lead toxicity? -Any high risk of the chemical from melting down aluminum cans? ~EE

The OSF has 844,410 total posts, and 72k members. Are we up there in high ranks of "most popular ( ) " or most active science forums? (I also forgot to mention that we have "ME", so that has to boost our rank a few 100 spots ) ~EE

But you only had 175 posts...you should be leaving us at least at 1,000!

I would believe someone who makes the life-saving drugs would be "more important". However, jobs like mathematicians which high demand but low supply may be equal to or more important than the cancer researcher, depending on the job (accountant v.s. mathematician working on Mars colonization). - Scientists. Social Scientists (sociologists, psychologists) - not as important; Chemists/ Biologists- importance is relative of the area of study. In a different scenario, if Earth were tremendously overpopulated and we needed to colonize on Mars ASAP, then I'd believe engineers should be paid more than cancer researchers. It's just right now CR are more important than engineers. Mostly from www.indeed.com and friends who work in both industries (4-6 yrs +) But you also site an NIH makes 6-figures. I'm talking about the average private industry salary. Gov't salaries are usually higher than private industry. I can also see where I may have indirect. I'm comparing CR's and engineers both with bachelor degrees, not a cancer researcher with a PhD at the CDC. I find, consistently that an engineer with a bachelors ALWAYS has a higher salary than a CR with a bachelors (biochemistry, biotech, bioinformatics), even with equal experience. I believe this is due to product turnover.

I really do want to be wrong here, I want nothing like this to happen. Thanks for the links, I'm feeling better.

This actually makes me feel better. Only thing I noticed is several of the sources you cited advocate $10.10/hr, not $15/hr. The studies were not based off $15/hr wages, so I'm inclined to believe product prices may rise higher than a quarter. This also goes for the uncertainty of businesses affording $15/hr as only $10.10 was mentioned.

In all honesty I don't really see anything good resulting from a $15/hr wage in fast food places...for starters its more than what most starting college graduates make. Secondly, The two main issues I see from this are either: - Increased food prices ---> Less buying of food products ----> Stores closing ----> less fast food jobs - Laying off a sizable amount of workers to cope with higher wage ----> less fast food jobs -your thoughts ~EE

In the states here, its more like this: Engineer ~ $100k; Cancer Researcher ~$45k But how many start biotech's even make it past the first 3 years w/o bankruptcy? You're talking about entrepreneurs, with little odds to begin with. I'm talking about why overpaid mechanics get paid six figures while cancer researchers get paid the salary of a high school economics teacher. In an ideal world they would be paid more, merely for utility and importance. Doctors get paid a hefty salary for diagnosing and treating you; cancer researchers should get paid a fair amount for making those life-saving drugs. I suppose its not a completely fair comparison.

I remember reading a magazine article from the early 1980's, talking about how the DOE was funding NASA to build a stirling engine to be used in a car. The engine was designed and built just over a year. - Is this why engineers are paid more than cancer researchers (i.e. Bioinformatics, Pharmaceutical Biotechnologists, Biochemists), because of mere product saturation? Any engineer, given the funding, and tools has the express capability of designing and building, any engine, bridge, exhaust system in a relatively short window of time. Your just limited to parts and imagination. But to cure a disease or make an effective drug/vaccine takes lots of research, lots of trial and error, creative thinking minds, FDA regulations. The way I see it: 75 mpg engine; with unlimited support and funding; required time ~ 2-4 yrs. Drug that can eliminate cancer or vaccine that eliminates ebola/ HV ; with unlimited support and funding; required time ~ 7-25 yrs. -The way I see it, shouldn't the latter be more important, and therefore paid more? (The only thing a 75 mpg will do for you in a virus outbreak is get you to the hills more efficiently). ~EE

Think of the isomers that sugars generate. (Glucose-6-phoshate ---> fructose-6-phosphate) I would think this makes the molecule somewhat less stable, but not overwhelmingly unstable, just enough to cause a potential tranistion. -20 C is enough to prevent this, I guess. ~EE

The only two potential candidates I see here ate biofuel and electric. I dont think were ever going to have enough research or support for hydrogen fuel. It requires a completely different set up for the engine design.. and other stuff. Solar heavily lacks in efficieny, and just overall output. The way I see it, biofuel and electric are the best candidates.. Biofuel is renewable, consistent with the curret fuel and wouldn't alter the aircraft design. Electric has a stable research fund relative to hydrogen, and will probably be looked into more b/c of that. ~EE