UC

Well, yes, but this isn't /b/....this....is SFNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What are you smoking and where can I get some? Also, science and astrology REALLY don't get along. inb4 the ban!

*cough cough* triphenylphosphine. Go from there.

Catalytic NaOH? But you need to deprotonate the benzyl carbon stoichiometrically. You end up with NaCl and H2O from the reaction as the base is consumed. Consider moving to a stronger base such as KOt-Bu or KH, which may necessitate a change in solvent. As for purification, there's always flash chromatography should all else fail. It may also be possible to gently oxidize the benzaldehyde and then shake the organic layer with 1M bicarbonate. Unless you have lots of polar sidechains on the stilbenes, they should greatly favor the organic layer, while the now benzoic acid will be readily removed as the benzoate

You do realize that SO3 fumes and sulfuric acid mists are considered a known human carcinogen, right? http://www.chemtradelogistics.com/MSDS/Oleum-English.pdf In addition, you are probably damaging everything else in the room.

Crossposting on different forums will rarely get you anywhere, especially since the answer you recieved was more than sufficient: http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=13194

The glasses that Bruce suggests are the best option, but many places don't seem to allow them now. Uvex makes some of the better goggles (and cheaper ones, heck they make everything) for labs and if you have a bookstore at your school, they may sell them there. The "flex-seal" goggles (item S3410X) tend to fog up if the lab is warm (and if you generally fog up your goggles) but they're exceedingly comfortable. Item S3960C are the ones I wear and they look a bit more like ski goggles than lab goggles. They don't seem to fog up as much but they're not as comfortable.

Sorry. I couldn't make out the question through the thick cloud of stupid. Would you mind summarizing?

What the heck are you talking about? deuterium behaves almost identically to regular old hydrogen.

You'd need to run it in a divided cell, usually using something like a porous clay pot to contain one of the electrodes. What would you do with the chlorine gas sideproduct? Generating some hypochlorite is basically inevitable with any kind of aqueous cell. The best way to get NaOH from NaCl is to in fact make sodium, and react it with water seperately.

No, I believe you have rotated physics 180 degrees. Overturning would imply a reflection, IMO

That's not even an argument. Proof or stfu is basically what it comes down to.

Is the name Vlad perhaps familiar to you? http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=4700

I liked that book as a kid On another note, I find the description from the "University's" site exceedingly pitiful- "Patriot course books are carefully selected from Biblically conservative, professional authors who have written on a focused subject. Courses present and expound on the absolute truth of the Bible - not humanistic reasoning." -> http://www.patriotuniversity.org/

luminol has a glow lifetime that's on the order of seconds, not hours.

Always check the synthetic literature first- http://www.orgsyn.org/orgsyn/orgsyn/prepContent.asp?prep=cv2p0434 I suggest you take the current product and treat it as in the second paragraph and on, scaling portions for your amount of product. It looks to be rather conditions-sensitive. You may want to re-run the procedure using the recommendations there in order to minimize difficult-to-seperate side products.

Look up a 3-center, 4 electron bond. I don't see why the mechanism couldn't use that as a high-energy intermediate with sp2 hybridization of the central carbon.

Hydrolysis of what? Esters? Draw out the mechanism and look for a step that might involve an acid or base. Lewis acids? Look at the reactants and products with regards to Le Chatlier's principle.

Just a heads up: Being a ChemE is a lot of math and not a lot of chemistry. You do some chem early on, but the higher level material is all fluid dynamics, properties of materials, etc. Basically, the job description is to design and maintain equipment used in chemicals processing. This could be an oil company, a smaller company that produces inks or pharmaceuticals, or even a food production plant. If you like tinkering with flasks and reactions, it's not the place for you.

Too many hints. It's OsO4. If you can smell it, you're not using enough safety equipment and should head for a hospital, as it can cause pulmonary edema and death below these concentrations. For the same reason it can stain tissue specimens, the fumes will damage your eyes and can cause blindness. Next! I am a very strongly colored kind of "salt", with an unconventional anion. I have been known for a very long time in solution, but have only recently been isolated as a solid using special ligands. You might say that the cations are as tightly bound as if they were in a grave. What am I?

Damnit, yep.

That depends on how you're observing the system. In this case, intercepting vibrational waves outside of the area of the event and in a time after the event has occured is highly unlikely to alter the state of the tree having made a sound. When you have to directly perturb the system to make a measurement, things get ugly. The real question is "If a quantum mechanical tree falls in a one-dimensional forest and no physicist is around to calculate the expectation values, does anyone care?"

The problem here is that you are comparing two entirely different reactions. When you use HCl, you are basically doing chemistry with the H+ ion present. The Cl- is pretty much inert. Look up an activity series. HCl will attack anything above hydrogen, including, but not limited to, lead, tin, zinc, aluminum, magnesium, sodium, etc. Lead is a bit fussy since lead chloride is insoluble and will form a protective coat that stops the reaction from proceeding, but it will react on the surface and heating helps drive it further. Copper is below hydrogen and so is not attacked. When you use dilute nitric acid, the reactions are identical, but when you use concentrated nitric acid, you are no longer doing chemistry with that H+. Instead, you are utilizing the nitrate portion, which is a powerful oxidizing agent when in high concentration. The nitrate portion is reduced to NO2 gas and the metal in question is oxidized. This reaction allows concentrated nitric acid to also attack metals that are "below" hydrogen on the activity series (to a point). Mercury, copper, and silver are all readily attacked by this reaction. The only reason that aluminum escapes oxidation is a total fluke. Aluminum has a high propensity to form a protective layer of aluminum oxide (corundum, the stuff rubies and sapphires are made of) and both in everyday air and under the strongly oxidizing conditions of concentrated nitric acid, this is exactly what happens. In more dilute solutions, the acidity would be able to dissolve this layer as aluminum nitrate and then the acid could attack as usual. Magnesium is fairly close in reactivity to aluminum, but doesn't form such an oxide layer. It is rapidly attacked by strong nitric acid, as aluminum would be if it weren't for the pesky oxide layer. Of course, the oxide layer is what makes aluminum so great as a building material. Without it, anything made of aluminum would crumble in a few months at most from oxidation by air.

Diacetylene. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacetylene Next! With 82.33% nitrogen by weight, I narrowly beats out ammonia itself (82.24%) for nitrogen content. I carry at least some aromaticity in my heterocyclic ring, and I'm known to have an unstable personality when dry. What am I?

Just adjust the pH with ammonium hydroxide. You'd just be mixing the two to make a different ammonium phosphate anyway, which would be making more work for yourself to do seperately.