Elite Engineer

Yep. And relative to the OP, there are no reagents present that can react the 2ndary alcohol with the carboxylic acid to form an ester.

Reduction of a ketone yields a secondary alcohol. There aren't any "open/free" bonds. Attached to the central carbon (after reduction) is a jhydrogen, 2 carbon atoms and a hydroxyl group.

You're thinking of an esterification reaction which requires a strong acid or base, not a platinum catalyst. ~EE

I'm going about the way of organic solvent extraction of aromatic compounds from flowers. However I'm unsure of the best way to extract the compounds, that is: - Just place the flower petals in hexane for 2-3 days or - Chop up the flower petals to increase surface area and better solvent distribution to certain crevasses. However I worry this would release alot of gunk and debris from the plant cells. Thanks, ~EE

Its all in the title? Go.

I'm more so looking into bacteria that breakdown human waste/ sewage..after it leaves the body.

I'm doing research on the products of bacterial metabolism on human sewage. I can find plenty of articles on the specific bacteria that are used to breakdown human sewage, but nothing on the specific products, particularly the gaseous products of this bacterial metabolism. If you know any journals, articles that have such info could you please be kind and post it or msg me! Thx! ~EE

roughly 700-800 degrees C. Not exactly at 1000 C, but enough to begin the compromising of the steel beams in the tower. You made a good point about the wind velocity at that particular height in the towers, close to an off-shore location. However, I think its more than factoring in the wind speed at that height. It's factoring in the wind turbulence as it flows through the mangled tower structure. If you've ever had a fire in a chimenea you'd know that the design allows incoming wind to form a vortex inside the oven, resulting in increased air and higher temperautres. So the air flow in the tower would also be a major factor that could have increased the flame temperatures as well..maybe as high as 900-1000 C. BTW, my friend is just a guy who reads conspiracy forums, so no real competition here

This is what I was looking for, relative to an explanation. Now to find out if this actually holds any truth.

Well ya thats the point, but it seems to be a stronger punch as well. I was wondering if it was something similar to how a bullet is spun down a barrel, making it more accurate

That hurt more than getting punched in the face.

I was having discussion with my friend yesterday, and he says the jet fuel from the jet that crashed into the towers cannot melt steel...which I fully agreed with him. However, I argued (and I'm no engineer by any means) that the impact of the plane, the weight, and heat combined made the towers collapse. A 168 ton plane, flying at 400 mph, had to have severlely weakened the immediate area that the aircraft impacted. Also, the steel beams were not engineered to hold a 168 ton aircraft, along with the high temperatures inside the tower. All these factors combined lead me to believe this is what caused the first or few floors to buckle causing the towers to fall in a floor-to-floor chain reaction. - Your thoughts? ~EE

I practice kenpo karate, and in our technqiues for punching, we are told to deliver a punch but then as soon as it hits the target, recoil it back to yourself as fast as possible. I've tested this out numerous times on a punching bag (hi-tech right?), and every time I throw a punch and then recoil it, I move the punching bag further than just throwing a one direction punch. -Just curious ~EE

When you purified your protein, you removed a sizable amount of other unwanted proteins and lipids etc. The decrease in these other components allowed your enzyme to have increased interactionswith its substrate, therefore increasing it's acivity. However a 60% increase is very high..unless your sample was HEAVILY contaminanted and you removed ALOT of garbage...or you may have measured or calculated the enzyme's activity incorrectly. What was the specific activity of your enzyme? (the same thing happened to me when I purified PON1 enzyme..but my increase in activity was a modest 2-4% increase) ~EE

Oh no, I was mentioning the fact that everyone else was suggesting it was enameled steel, you're fine.

The pan is actually enameled steel as mention numerous times. I have plenty of sodium hydroxide so then I just soak in a sodium hydroxide bath for a few minutes then scrub? ~EE

I'm trying to clean a heavily stained broiler pan that is covered in lots of oily, black deposits from cooking. Are most of the deposits just charred carbon, or mostly nonpolar substances "cooked" on to the pan? I was thinking about using xylene, or some other nonpolar solvents to possibly dissolve the deposits...or is the only way to clean it is by the casual soap and elbow grease..I hope not ~EE

Water vapor does interact with gaseous CO2, making transient carbonic acid but only in very, very small amounts...barely enough to be measured or have a drastic effect. The rate constant for the forward reaction of carbonic acid with liquid water is 0.039 s−1 while the reverse reaction rate constant is 23 s−1 is far more dominant in the reaction. Since these are statistics on the liquid water- carbon dioxide interactions I'd expect the vaporized water-carbon dioxide interactions to be even less frequent. So, your plants will have an ample supply of CO2. ~EE

Your body has millions upon millions of random, sequenced antibodies for completely random and different antigens...there are technically tons of "wasted antibodies" that your body needs to keep around fopr identifiying any kind of foriegn antigen. -there not really wasted, just longterm storage for potential use...the more antibodies you have with more random sequences, the better you have at recognizing a foriegn antigen and dealing with it.

Yea, right? The Mg pratically cries aloud with this kind of reaction...specifically, it a "Grignard reaction". All I can say it's a nucleophilic attack.

I assume rolling down the window would cause less air to hit vehicle by simply flowing through, similar swinging a paddle with holes in it, compared to a solid paddle, the paddle with the holes moves throug the air much faster cause of less friction/drag..

When ever my girlfriend or my friends ask me a scientific question, and I ACTUALLY explain the answer they tend to get annoyed and/or distracted. Sometimes they say I "talk just to hear myself talk" or that I "go on and on and on", but I'm just trying to illustrate the actual scientific reason behind the answer, and in return they get frustrated. I imagine I'm not the only person ever to have this problem? ~thoughts? ~EE

When you're driving a car, and a big gust of wind slams into the side of your car (perpendicularly), what is the best method to counteract the wind from moving or misdirecting your car? Should you increase speed? Would this increase drag on the front of the car and increase friction at the wheels, hopefully overpowering the perpendicular force of the wind? Or would slowing down help?... (obviously role down windows to reduce drag from the side direction, but lets assume that has already been done). -*NOTE* - by strong winds, I'm not referring to tornado magnitude winds, just really strong stormy winds, in which you're inconveniently placed at a very high position on a road/ highway.

what about motor proteins "energized" by ATP?

I dont understand. Cells require exothermic, free energy reactions to function. The energy released by bond breakage (i.e. heat) in a cell does not contribute to the energy transfer in chemical processes, however the lower stability of the product and "good leaving group" (i.e. phosphate group) provide the energy for the chemical process (reaction --> product) to take place. But then what "energy" drives mechanical movement of proteins, and pumps, etc. if the "energy" is just either a chemical bond with a high potential energy (i.e. ATP) or a product with a higher stability (resonance of pyruvate at the end of the glycolytic pathway)? -I guess what I'm asking is..you can see the oxidation of sucrose is generated by the energy of the N-O bonds in potassium nitrate breaking..its a clear transfer of thermal of energy. Thermal energy increases vibrations--> high vibrational energy is transferred---> high vibrational energy causes bonds to break (i.e. C-C, C-O and C-H...sucrose) This has always bothered me and I want to know why! ~EE