Jump to content

Kaeroll

Senior Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    250

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Kaeroll

  1. Kaeroll
    It seems pointless to read a textbook without the guidance of a tutor imo. During one of my university interviews I asked for recommended reading, and was advised to buy and read the course organic text (1000+ pages, used throughout undergrad study). My interviewer was one of the authors though, so I suspect a conflict of interest was at hand...
  2. Kaeroll
    This site is a nice help site structured around the UK A levels. If you're looking to study it might be a nice place to start. I don't know of any good books really - I went straight to textbooks as directed by my tutors. Perhaps an A level revision primer?
  3. Kaeroll

    I'd rather not say where I study publicly, but if you'd like I'll tell you in a private message.

     

    I'm glad I can come off as a specialist! Maybe one day I'll have the knowledge to back up such an impression... I'm also studying for an undergrad MChem, in my third year.

     

    'Physical organic', as I've encountered the terms, is really good. Applying concepts like the Hammond postulate and Polanyi (et al)'s work on potential energy surfaces to organic reactions - I find that and transition state theory fascinating and useful. Shame I suck at maths.

     

    I found inorganic gets better as it goes along. There's some really cool chemistry being done using metal templating to self assemble complex systems and the like.

  4. Kaeroll
    Hope that's not too provocative a title... In brief: does particle physics actually have any applications? I am a strong believer in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. It seems to me, particle physics - smashing atoms together at the LHC (or not as the case may be, heh) - is pretty much the ultimate realisation of this. I was wondering, does this kind of research have any applications outside of its own field? For example, relativity seems obscure to the layman, but is used in, say, GPS satellites. Cheers Kaeroll
  5. Kaeroll
    I suspect the diarrhoea was connected more to the food than the toothpaste. What'd you eat?
  6. Kaeroll

    I am. I'm still an undergraduate but I enjoy mostly organic and biochemistry. I quite like some "physical organic" also. Yourself?

  7. Kaeroll

    Heck, why not.

  8. Kaeroll
    I'll let the master take this one.
  9. Kaeroll
  10. Kaeroll
    A classic, surely? Though most chemicals I've worked with haven't been half as pretty. Alternatively, the Bunsen burner, or distillation apparatus. The latter is a must in any Hollywood chem lab, usually without any kind of sheath on the condenser, and surrounded by conical flasks inexplicably filled with dry ice or food dye. mooeypoo - I prefer Dr. Manhattan's take on the atomic symbol.
  11. Kaeroll
    Round these 'ere parts there's a tattoo known as a "tramp stamp". Usually located in the lower back (and never covered up), often taking the design of wings or the like. It's apparently a sign that the owner is a tramp (hence the name), or slut. Whether this is true or not I honestly couldn't say. I have taste in women, you see. Link to photo.
  12. Kaeroll

    Atomic radii.

    Kaeroll replied to elas's topic in Speculations

    Quantum theory does explain why fluorine is corrosive and neon inert. It's an idea that predates quantum theory but is explained by it, the old 'octet rule'. Having a full valence shell is a low energy/stable state; any compounds of noble gases will tend to be higher energy than the elemental form, so will "want" (thermodynamically speaking) to return to that state. Bear in mind that any model you propose has to do everything quantum theory does, and do it better. Can you explain and predict, to give just one example, spectroscopic wavenumbers? Schrodinger certainly can.
  13. Kaeroll
    I believe trepanning is still used, more to release pressure in the skull than evil spirits, but who knows. Ether, ew. I got stoned off that once (quite by accident, honest) and had a nasty headache when I woke up three hours later.
  14. Kaeroll
    Hm. I'm not sure about the first (it makes chemical sense... though I usually have carbs and meat together with no problems...), but the second is untrue in my experience. I usually have a banana with lunch, and/or as a snack on its own, as it's the only fruit I eat so I make an effort to get 'em down me. I notice absolutely no difference in how I feel whether I eat it with or without non-fruit foods. Sounds like an old wives' tale to me.
  15. Kaeroll
    Thanks for the replies. I'll pass them on.
  16. Kaeroll
    explains it nicely in the context of the song "Ironic".
  17. Kaeroll
    Thanks for clarifying that term GDG. That's precisely what I was referring to.
  18. Kaeroll
    This came up in a conversation I had with a medic student I know... in a lot of TV shows, defibrillation is used to revive flatliners. According to Wikipedia, this is not done in real life, and we understand why that is. My friend suggested that it might actually work, as a similar method is used to restart hearts during transplants (albeit by directly shocking the heart rather than the chest). Can anyone settle this for us?
  19. Kaeroll
    Heh... sorry. I couldn't resist.
  20. Kaeroll
    *too
  21. Kaeroll
    Isn't there a genuine flat earth society, i.e. one which is not satirical?
  22. Kaeroll
    Which is more important: style or content? As long as the post is intelligible (like the original post in this thread), does it matter, really, if the grammar isn't perfect? I'd take A Childs Mind's posting style over something like this any day.
  23. Kaeroll
    If you've got a better way of phrasing it, feel free to share. I'm simply curious as to how many people have read it and what they thought.
  24. Kaeroll
    Not necessarily, hence adding 'found it useful' to the poll. I don't necessarily read scientific texts with a huge grin on my face, but it's possible to find it useful, informative, or generally 'good' without being 'enjoyable'.
  25. Kaeroll
    In brief: who's read it? I was in a bookstore yesterday with an old friend and we couldn't find a copy of it in the science section. Perhaps understandable given that the books there were purely pop science. He asked me if I'd read it, as I do have an interest in biology. I've not read it but in a way, I feel it's required reading for people in many fields. Not as a piece of dogma or gospel, but simply as historical perspective (much like Pauling's The Nature of the Chemical Bond). Wondered if anyone has any thoughts on this, and particular whether any biologists who've read it think it's worth doing so.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.