Elite Engineer

When I made the peracetic acid, I tested it with a pH indicator strip. Comparing the results to the different pH levels, this was a minimum of 3.5, maybe less than 3, or even 2.9, 2.8. Maybe I added too much acetic acid or w.e. there's always epoxidation I guess. I've read some literature stating that peracetic acid is a strong oxidizer than hydrogen peroxide.

yes, but neither of them are very strong acids.

You could start by making a simple cell membrane using hydrophobic chemicals, and then insert hydrophilic chemicals in its center, and see where that goes.

yes, I've heard of that as well, but I'm trying to synthesize a strong oxidizer from household chemicals (yes I know about bleach, w.e). However, I did synthesize it with a weak concentration of acetic acid (vinegar) and concentrated hydrogen perxoide. I tested the pH, and it was surpisingly acidic (about 3.5) . I experienced no breathing issues, and carried out the reaction outside (about 25 degrees F). About to make a more potent soltuon and test it on a bacterial sample.

I see that, but wouldn't there be a higher concentration of product because of the increase in -delta G? (question in a question if you will)

Hold on... wouldn't there be a noticeable increase in product concentration due to a higher entropy on the right side, making the reaction thermodynamically favored toward the products... regarldess of Le Chateliers principle.

Yes, its along the same lines of UFO's. All the sudden there are "UFO edperts" and people "educate" themselves about the "science" of UFO's, even though there is no education, or thinking involved. In the now and present its that whole quantum sciencey stuff that people brag about like they went to MIT, and have no idea what their talking about. Glad to see there is somone who understands what I'm saying. I've tried politely discussing these quantum theories with my friends, and bring notice to some inconsistencies that they're saying. Once I say something they dont want to hear they just blurt out something like "...there are infinite universes so it could still happen". I sit there thinking, you have no idea what you're really saying, but you're going to say abunch of fancy science lingo and "sound" smart.

I'm not sure when quantum mechanics caught the interest of the public, and people began "educating" themselves on the subject, but I want nothing more than for it to go away, and never be talked about on televison, or at parties ever again. TV shows like "Through the worm-hole" are literally making ignorant people who have no idea what the hell their talking about, even MORE ignorant. All the sudden I go to friends houses, or I over hear a conversation that sounds like this "...oh, yeah, but there are infinite universes, and time is infinite so time travel is possible...string theory makes so much sense, its the only quantum theory I believe (real quote)". For the most part (as in 99%) these people are talking straight out of their ass, and they can.b/c you can bullshit your way through a laymen "quantum physics" conversation. There are no "wrong" answers, and there is no heavy calculation or understanding. Of course there is a sequence of logic in it, but isnt all science dictated by logic? Repeating what Morgan Freeman at a cocktail party about time travel makes you look like a total TOOL, no einstein. I honestly don't know a thing about quantum mechanics, and don't care too..I just wish these people would just stfu. I hold a degree in biochemistry, and would lve to talk to people about the synthesis of hemoblogobin. Wy cant people discuss engineering ideas, etc....o but wait, people can't bullshit their way through a discussion like that, because that takes deep understanding, calculation, hard applications oh chemistry and biology..instead people waste their breath talking about how infinite the univerise is. These people are not increasing their IQ, their sitting stagant in a pond of ignorance sinking deeper, not applying any critical thinking or logic in their lives..just mere parrots at best. -your thoughts? ~ee

No, I just want to know if it's safe to synthesize at room temperature or not. I dont want to make it, and then have it's vapors burn my lungs.

I'm trying to observe the disinfectant properties of peracetic acid in water, as an alternative to chlorine disinfectant. However, I noticed that the second source (chemspider) says it boils at 119 degrees C +/- 23 degrees under 760 mmHg. I'm aware of the products high toxcitiy and unstability at moderately high temperatures, so I'm only using a very small amount. Boiling Point: 119.1±23.0 °C at 760 mmHg (via chemspider) -question still unanswered

I'm trying to synthesize peracetic acid (via hydrogen perxoide + acetic acid), but want know more knowledge of its boiling point for safety reasons. Two different, reliable sources tell me two very different results of its boiling point. One source says it's 25 degrees celsius, while the other says its 119 degrees celsius +/- 23 degrees. my question is: Which boiling point is the correct one, and is it sill safe to synthesize it, and would you still synthesize if you were unsure? thx, ~ee here are the sites: claims bp = 25 degrees C: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/047084289X.rp034.pub3/abstract claims bp = 119 degrres C +/- 23 degrees http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.6336.html?rid=ae43221f-23e1-4a76-8720-08dd2ee342ca

An endothermic reaction is required to break a chemical bond right? When a bond is formed, the reaction is exothermic. So... why does splitting an atom yield an highly exothermic reaction if there are no new bonds forming? ~ee

I've noticed on OSF, and many other forums that people who make erroneous statments tend to receive far more responses than people with honest to god questions....why is this? ~ee

That is..could you subject caffeine to a vaporized state, and then inhale it, in order to hasten its effects on you, rather than wait fo ti took take affect via liquid?

I'm wondering about any additional details about getting struck by lightning. here's a video..let me know of anything else.

So I was bored, and build a a ventilation hood during my vacation from work, using parts from an air conditioner. I built the container out of wood (b/c it was cheaper and faster), and I have to line the inside with a relativley cheap, and non-hazardous flame retardant material...any suggestions??? ~EE

Yes, the compressor is in excellent condition. How could I use it for more power?

I took apart an old air conditioner, and attached a belt to the rod on the fan, and intend to use it to drive a pulley, however the fan doesnt have enough strength to fully spin with the load attached (the fan puts out 0.03 hp). Is there a way to increase the volts going into the eletrical engine to give it more force to rotate with the load attached. I has 120 volts flowing through, is it possible to have 140, 180, 240 volts? ~EE

This is what my born again Christian friend tries to explain to me everytime we talk about evolution. In the past I've held my ground quite firmly on this topic, but as of recently he has made some claims from some "scientific journals" that carbon dating may not be as accurate as thought, and that it is misleading. I have a hard time believing anything he really says about this, but my question comes down to this, how accurate is carbon dating and how sure are we it works?

If on a test or experiment you result above the average of the sample group that is generally regarded as good. However, what if you score above average, but the average is failry low...say out of a sample size of 1000, the average score is 40%, and your "above average" score is 49%, with the highest score being 59 (standard deviation is 10.7). Is this "above average" score really that great or is it just a little bit better? (these are not actual sample scores, just random numbers)

If on a test or experiment you result above the average of the sample group that is generally regarded as good. However, what if you score above average, but the average is failry low...say out of a sample size of 1000, the average score is 40%, and your "above average" score is 49%, with the highest score being 59 (standard deviation is 10.7). Is this "above average" score really that great or is it just a little bit better? (these are not actual sample scores, just random numbers)

Do you regret getting your PhD? Has it paid off both financially and personally? Has your research benefited science? Was researching a specialized field really worth the time of the PhD? If you could, would you have gone back in time and worked a 9-5 job making extra money, and have more available free time? I know the old cliche says that if you truly love something you will pursue it, but please avoid the cliches and motivational speeches. I'm looking for dry, upfront costs and benefits. ~EE

I would assume the iron, being sprinkled onto/into your pores and then rubbed into your skin would cause some kind of acute toxicity...maybe. I also dont believe the particles of iron would carry any acne inducing "gunk", just probably (if any) dead skin particles and lotion Back in high school I always used facial soap mixed with sugar grains to act a s roughner to smooth out the skin and remove any oil/ dead skin that would clog pores. Hope this helped! Welcome to the OSF!

I was basing my premise on the belief that current IQ tests are flawed/biased because they were looking for results of how much more "knowledge"(aimless facts..i.e. What is a(n) atom, DNA?) people had in current generations than in past generations as opposed to critical thinking skills. As society advances people know more "things" and this is what I thought IQ scores were based off of.

Ah I admire your out of the box thinking. I wish I had thought of the "brain training repetitions" due to more available info, mental disorders, and diet. Those are actually very good explanations that no one has brought to me yet. You may have pulled the plug on my premise! Curse you good sir. ~EE