Technologist

Light has a dual nature. It can show characteristics of both a wave and a particle. Experiments on reflection, refraction, and diffraction clearly show that light displays wave like properties similar to waves of water or sound. On the other hand light shows characteristics of a particle. Assuming that the space between earth and the sun lacks enough material to transmit a wave, then how would light reach us if it wasn’t a particle? The photoelectric effect is evidence of the particle nature of light. If you find this subject interesting a lot chemical instrumentation (thats my area of training) is based on the properties of light ... if you ever run into a good book on spectroscopy pick it up. http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/~wpb/spectroscopy/spec_home.html ... click on the basics of light. I hope that helps you out ... I may have repeated information you already know.

Hey guys I'm doing an experiment on adsorption using acetic acid and activated charcol. Curious to know if anyone has any good web sites that explain methods, the chemistry, and the calculations (specifically how to calc the constants). Thanks.

Type anything in the search engine. Check out all the info on TOLUENE

The search engine came up empty so I thought I would post this great resource. http://www.inchem.org/

From "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html" "Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved." First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved. Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.) Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain. What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

To elaborate, god is characterized as being beyond reality. Conventionally god is understood to be outside of this universe (all that exists to man). What can be known about some “thing” that is beyond our universe? Nothing! Its an arbitrary concept that has no ties to the universe. Creationism’s creator can’t be reduced to sensory evidence. Evolution can. The evolutionary theory is considered to be a fact by most because it works. It explains and predicts observations. Its applications range from microbiology to pharmacology. Creationism, practically speaking, is useless. Also, evolution has been observed. Evolution, defined as a change in the gene pool over time, is a fact. Lastly, common decent is a small fraction of the entire evolution theory.

Hey guys I am hoping that someone here who has a strong organic background can help me out. Quant, phys chem, no problems ... organic on the other hand I hardly have my head above the water. Honestly I don't feel that I deserve the grades I have. In the synthesis of 1-phenylethanol, we poured acetophenone into methanol. Next, we prep a solution of methanol, sodium methoxide, and sodium borohydride (in that order). Slowly poured the borohydride solution into the acetophenone/methanol mixture. I know that NaBH4 is providing the hydride ions ... but why methanol? Maybe I need some sleep here or a refresher on the reduction of carbonyl groups but the answer isn't poping up at the moment. Thanks!

If I could recommend a book called “chemical evolution”, those with training in chemistry and who are curious about evolution may find the book interesting. The author slips my mind. I believe he is a Harvard lecturer/researcher. To be honest I’ve only read a handful of books and textbooks on the subject of evolution. I have no formal training in evolutionary theory so I could be wrong, but as far as I understand the only thing evolution has to say about the origins of life is that we all share a common ancestor. This goes against biblical accounts on the origins of life of course. I also want to define proof as reducing a concept to sensory evidence. It is therefore impossible to prove or disprove the notion of god/creationism, as god is characterized as supernatural (beyond the natural). This is a stolen concept fallacy. The truth or falsehood of an idea depends on reality. For an idea to be true, it has to correspond with reality. For an idea to be false, it has to contradict some aspect of reality. As such, these concepts are labeled arbitrary concepts. An arbitrary concept can neither be true or false. Great posts Swansont

http://www.nau.edu/~chem/faculty/ingram/images/CHM_320_Mar_Lectures.pdf

Sorry about that, iodine isn’t red/brown, it is a purple. I have a difficult time distinguishing between the colors of bromine, iodine, and other darker shades of these colors. I’m not completely color blind, but needless to say I didn’t pass qualitative analysis with flying colors. Okay, bad joke. I’m fairly positive that hydrogen iodide is a colorless gas with a pungent odor, and in solution is a clear almost yellow liquid. [Edit I also understand its not very stable as a gas? Just offering some additional information ... ] What were your starting reagents and their manufacturer if you don’t mind me asking? Curious to know where the bromine came from.

You should set up a shop vac/fume hood in your "home lab" for safety ...

The combination of H2SO4 + KI + H2O2 yields I2 (amoung other things) which is a red/brown ppt depending on your perception. I don't know what the red gas would have been. To be honest I wouldn't have expected a gas to evolve. Was it an exothermic rxn?

Everyone has the desire to be special/different in some way ... apparently you are taking these random situations a bit to personally.

Actually traditional inuit people suffer many metabolic diseases due to their diets high in fat and proteins. To answer your question inuits also eat a lot of organ meats that have high nutritional values. This is why many very low carbohydrate dieters (atkins) end up with nutritional deficiencies. Western people eat muscles which are simple structures and thus have fewer resources compared to more complex organs/tissues like the liver for example.

Hello. I'm a chemistry student who is very active and interested in human performance. I know more about steroids and other performance enhancing drugs than supplements but I'll offer as much information as I can. To answer the original question, the best supplement that you will find is probably creatine. Basically, creatine prevents the buildup of lactic acid by providing your body with the resources to make more ATP. Your muscles will hold more water and therefore they will look bigger. The idea is by holding more water and getting that extra rep in the gym (due to ATP) you will overload your muscles and they will get bigger than without the supplement. Its not dangerous but if you have a family history of kidney problems then I would suggest you talk with your doctor before using. Also, you only need a tsp per day, don't load creatine as those who profit from the sales of the supplements suggest. General comments: The guy above with huge arms is using steroids, but the size of his arms is due to a product called synthol. Synthol is an oil that is injected (intramuscular) and basically adds volume to the muscles. Synthol isn't a performance enhancing drug, it doesn't contribute to your functional ability at all. Its just an oil that extreme bodybuilders inject into their muscles that doesn't dissipate quickly. Its legal to purchase. As for L-Car, the amino acid, its a waste of money. Nutrition is one of the most important factors in building your body. You can't build your body without the building blocks right? Contrary to the bbing magazines who, by the way, make their money selling protein supplements and not magazines, all you need is about 1 gram per pound of weight. Most research suggests that anything above 1 gram per pound of weight is used for energy (through gluconeogenesis) rather than the repair, maintenance, and growth of structural tissues.

I hope that you are performing your experiments under a fume hood and under the supervision of an experienced lab supervisor. Chemistry, although an experimental science, isn't a "hit & miss" science. I don't just walk into a lab and start playing. I need to have objectives, reagent tables, safety information, possible minor reactions/products, etc, etc, all thought out before I walk into the lab.

Its been a long time. If I recall correctly saturated fats have higher melting points than unsaturated fats. Therefore a fatty acid chain that is saturated with hydrogen (no double bonds) will have a higher melting point. A fatty acid chain that is unsaturated (one double bond) melts at a lower temperature than a saturated fat. An a polyunsaturated fat (more than one double bond) will have the lowest melting point. Oils, unsaturated fats, are liquids at room temperature. Solid fats, saturated fats, are solids at room temperature.

Aluminum hydroxide is a white solid. Anhydrous methanol is very corrosive to most metals I do believe, but in the presence of water methanol is much less corrosive. If chlorides are present methanol will corrode aluminum quickly, forming aluminum methylene chloride. I’m can’t recall its physicals properties. Did you use tap water?

Initially oxygen was the only known oxidizing agent therefore the term oxidation was coined. Reduction is a gain in elections. Electrons have a negative charge. If a species gains more negative charges then its oxidation number decreases. Fe3+ will reduce to Fe2+. Its oxiation number decreases. Oxidation is a loss of electrons. Electrons have a negative charge. Therefore losing electrons = a greater positive charge.

Hey my name is Nathaniel. As I mentioned in the general discussion I am a Canadian and new to chemistry. First year student taking a 3 year technologist diploma in a 2 year program ... without a doubt the hardest thing I've ever attempted. I am struggling with organic chemistry. The nomenclature but especially reactions. Does anyone have any web sites that summarize organic reactions ... for a first year student? Thanks guys/gals.

I'm currently a chemistry student in Canada taking a 3 year tech diploma in 2 years. I hope that I'll be able to contribute but honestly I'll probably be asking much more questions than I'll be answering. Thanks for the site admins/mods.