Bluenoise

Well you should have googled it since the first result for sharpie solvent links you to a msds on the sharpie page that sates that they contain two solvents. Nitroparaffin and naphtha. Seems that the super sharpie permenant markers contain Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether instead. I'd guess that they might use even more types of solvents in different types of markers they produce. Here's a link to MSDS's for all their products. http://www.sharpie.com/sanford/consumer/sharpie/whatsinside/msds.jhtml

I doubt that your parents traits are that much dissimulair to yours in this respect. Having the ability to preform well in computer science is most like due to the combination of many many genes. The likely hood of such a feature being recessive is extreemly low. This is mostly due to upbringing. You parents generation just wasn't exposed to computers in the same way as you were. I have a simular example in my family, me and both my parents are extreemly computer literate, but my grandparents can barley operate a mouse. Now my parents are just young enough to have worked with computers in university. (punch card stuff...) So they got exposed. Had they been a few years older they probably would have missed this early exposure.

I doubt there's a computer science gene...

sure, same thing for our purposes, no need to nitpic. I disagree. Not so much the rotation of the orbital but the rotation of the atom on an axis that passes through the orbital. The other orbitals will move. They are practically at fixxed angles and will stay approximatley in that arrangement if the atom is rotated. Anyways, the point of matter is that that bond does not create different stereo isomers.

Yes it does, all the positions of the orbitals on one carbon are fixxed relatively to each other, so as long as it does not fall on the axis of rotation the position will change when rotation happens on that axis. However, if there are other constraints like a ring or extreem steric interactions rotation may not be possible. This is not the case here though. Okay so I forced myself to do it. This is the IUPAC name of that structure 1-(3-vinyl-4,5-dihydrofuran-2-yl)ethanamine I put it through a sturctural analysing software. (http://www.acdlabs.com) I made it search for stero centers. Two exist the S and R at the chiral centre near the NH2. Not a cis and trans on the single bond separting the double bonds. All possible isomers for this structure: (1S)-1-(3-vinyl-4,5-dihydrofuran-2-yl)ethanamine & (1R)-1-(3-vinyl-4,5-dihydrofuran-2-yl)ethanamine

I wish, but my nomenclature is horrible. Maybe someone else could find the name. But I know that that single bond is formed from two sp2 hybridized orbitals and acheives symmetrical overlap all the way around which allows it to rotate freely, making it only one structure. However there is a chiral centre present where at the carbon bonded to the nitrogen.

Are you sure about that? I pretty sure that the single bond between the double bonds rotates so there isn't a fixxed cis or trans for that structure.

I still think it has to do with higher stability of the conjugate base, due to less hindered overlap of the p orbitals in forming the resonance conditions. Those Oxigens need to be planar when fully dissacociated to resonate and 3 would fit better then 4... Or due to the closer proximity of the H on the H-P bond helps stabalize the negative charge on the oxygen....

I don't think you posted the right link. But anyways yeah, this sort of thing could have been answered real quick with a fast google.

Right but this doesn't really explain too well why the first hydrogen dissacociates easier in Phosphorus acid then Phosphoric.

Oh god I'm going to have a very hard time translating these things. Our idea of A/B/C/D is completely off from yours. Sigh.

I understand what you're saying but I really have no doubt with my answer. +5 isn't rare, Phosphoric acid is +5 the Phophates in ATP are +5. Considering the halides doesn't prove anything. Both PCl3 and PCl5 are common. I can't really think of any other way to explain it. If you can't take my word there isn't much more I can say. Maybe someone else can clear up this stalemate...

No it's pentavalent. Common states for phosphorus are -3, +3, +5 and No acutally if you'd like to count again you'd notice that it makes 5 bonds; 1 with the hydrogen and 4 with the oxygen's (2 single bound, 1 double bonded). 5 bond is very common for phosphorus. It's the same with Phosphoric acid except one of the oxygens is missing and the hydrogen is directly bonded to the Phosphorus Anyways I KNOW I am correct. Why don't you just go look up the structure from a reputible source and find out for yourself. The source I supplied (PubChem) is a very good one, very reliable. It's actually a new offshoot directory from NCBI. I didn't draw that myself... Here's another http://www.chemicalland21.com/arokorhi/industrialchem/inorganic/PHOSPHOROUS%20ACID.htm But please go prove it for yourself if you can't take my word.

I'm contemplating applying to a US school for my grad work and this american GPA measure is pretty weird. (Seems pretty silly actually) My school only supplies us with our GPA as a percentile grade. How would I go about converting it too your system?

For the fields of interest that you've stated. NCBI - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ would be a great place to start. They have a large selection of textbooks available online that may be of interest to you (Molecular Biology of the cell is awesome), plus links to many other sites. Anyways if you want to go into these fields you WILL be using this site occasionally, if not very often. I'm currently completing my undergrad in a Biochemistry (Biotechnology specialization) which covers your stated interest and have a large collection of related bookmarks that may interest you. pm me if you are interested.

Sure there is http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=407

Equimolar amounts should work. As long as the Ph of your solution ends up being lower then the pKa of tryptamine it should be fully protonated I believe. (Which will be so if you use an equal molar amount of both to get it fully nutralized since tryptamine is a base.) Bah acid base stuff anoys me for some reason.

Well the conjugate base is more stable I guess. why? Well more of a guess then anything but I'd say that the resonance form of the conjugate base finds additional stability from the pair of electrons that form the P-H bond. Or maybe it's stabler because of less steric hinderence with it's resonance form..

Yes.

Are they both 3.60 M? Or are they combined 3.60 M? Anyways in the instance that they're both 3.60 Well you need 3.00 M of H2O to react to reach equilibrium, these require 1/3 as many of N2O4, so you have 1.00 M of N2O4 reacting. Which leaves you with 2.60 M N2O4 remaining.

None. We can not build life... ...yet Maybe that's why your not getting an answer. You can't really expect anyone to respond on building life with a specific requirement like an expanded set of amino acids when we can't build life at all. However, there is one definate answer. If we could build life, and we did with those other amino acids we would build a version of life with a larger set of amino acids. Anything beyond that is speculation.

Yes the reaction is quite violent and in quantity can reach the flash point of H2. NaBH4 is fairly flamible itself as well.

I never said it didn't. I said like glycerine because the only real difference would be the length. If it was 3 in lenght I would have said it was glycerine

I disagree. Genetic engineering is more of a preventative measure; while stem cells are used to repair damage already done. Of course prevention is nice, but not always possible. The methods really solve two different problems for the most part. Not everything is genetically based. Also even if it is and you fix the defective gene, there is no garuntee that the tissue will regrow. Very few do.