exchemist

I have zero intention of interacting with ChatGPT. Ever.

All part of finding out what background the questioner has. These are very specific questions about organic synthesis, not the sort of thing I would expect to be relevant to many fields outside organic chemistry itself, hence the question. This sounds pretty bad. I'd have expected at least some course notes, maybe of lectures or presentations from the teacher. Anyway, I hope the 2 links I have provided (the Libretext one and the chemguide one) are helpful. But you will need to know a certain amount to even understand what links like this are saying. I sense you are struggling because you have been plunged into 6th Form or 1st year undergrad level organic chemistry without being taught any of the basics first. Seems a bit daft to me.

I've no idea what you are talking about, I'm pleased to say. 🤣

Ah so you are studying organic chemistry then, but just as a module of a broader course. Fair enough. This issue of what goes where in a chemical equation: the reactants go on the left and the products on the right, since the arrow denoting the direction of reaction goes by convention from left to right. There is no rule as to which reactant goes first. Some reactions are also equilibria that can go either way, depending on the conditions, concentrations, pressures etc. In such cases it does not even matter which you write as reactants and which as products. These are shown with double -headed arrows or more properly this symbol: ⇌ . Coming now to your example of t-Bu iodide reacting with cyanide, I don't understand your answer. This is a nucleophilic substitution. The iodine atom, being electronegative, comes off as iodide, I⁻ leaving a carbocation, which attracts CN⁻ so that it forms a bond in place of the iodide that has gone. It is described here (with bromine instead of iodine but it will be the same process): https://www.chemguide.co.uk/mechanisms/nucsub/cyanide.html So the product will be t-Bu-CN. But for some reason you are showing t-Bu-I as reacting with a further I⁻. That can't be right. What are you using as a learning aid? Do you have a textbook? If not, what does the course expect you to be using? It can help in gauging what kind of answer is likely to he helpful, if one has an idea of where the questioner is coming from. Especially in the homework section.

OK, that's useful guidance. I'll keep it in mind. If you can't tell by now, you must be thicker than I thought. 😁

What are you studying and why do you need to get answers to these organic chemistry questions?

Why are you sending us what looks like a screen shot of someone else asking the identical question?

I've a horrible feeling we are being suckered by a bot here. It makes no sense to speak of "solving" a chemical equation, nor of describing one as having "terms" in it. This is terminology from mathematical equations. The previous enquiries from mcrestroom were also odd. It's hard to think that anyone who is actually attending classes in organic chemistry would be asking these questions in the way he - or it - does. I think I'm going to send in a report, just in case.

Just trying to understand your point here, is it that what would constitute "improvement" in the program could only be defined by its human users, so the AI would not be able to improve itself without human feedback as to what to change?

OK. This abstract: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41581-021-00533-0 says that apart from hypertension it had effects on the kidneys (not surprising), brain and immune system. Not clear to me how many of these factors are knock-on effects of hypertension, as opposed to other direct effects of excess sodium. There will be others who know much more about this, e.g. @CharonY

From this account of its history, Iosepa does not seem to have relied on brackish water. They had intermittents streams and built a reservoir: https://issuu.com/utah10/docs/uhq_volume76_2008_number4/s/10217177

What settlements were these?

I have similar suspicions.

The opinion of the people here is that you can safely use the specific grease for which you provided an MSDS, for the purpose that you indicated. Period.

No they don't. But for you it makes a change from spontaneous combustion and exploding thymus glands, I suppose.

Energy is a book-keeping, conserved quantity, with dimensions ML²/T². Momentum is another book-keeping conserved quantity, but with dimensions ML/T. Because both are conserved properties, they are specially useful in analysing physical systems and processes. As for what it describes, that has already been mentioned: the capacity of a system to do work: lift a weight, light a bulb of a certain wattage for a certain time or whatever.

If the product data does not mention approval for potable water applications, all that means is that it may not have been submitted for approval. It does not mean it is unsuitable, just that the relevant body may not have considered it for approval. The distinction between “suitable for” an application and “approved for” an application is one I remember well from my career in the lubricants industry. It can have implications for such legal things as warranties in some cases, but if that is not at issue it may not matter. From what your respondents can see from the MSDS, and from what we know of the chemistry and your intended application, we can see no appreciable risk.

A quick web search reveals there is a UK body called WRAS: https://www.wrasapprovals.co.uk that actually approves materials for use in potable water applications. They appear to have approved one or more silicone greases. If you are not in the UK, I have no doubt there will be equivalent bodies in your country.

A property, of a physical system of some kind, where the "physical system" may involve matter and/or fields (EM radiation consists of oscillating fields). (In English it is spelt "physics" by the way.)

It sounds as if this person has fallen into the old trap of the "Star Trek Fallacy", of thinking energy is a substance: some kind of "stuff". It isn't. Energy is merely a property of a physical system of some kind. So it's meaningless to say the photon is a flow of energy, unless he can say the energy of what, and what kind of energy it is. So I'm afraid it looks like run-of-the-mill crank physics, from someone who does not know much physical science, and thus not worthwhile for me to watch the video.

Yes I'm sure it will be fine. It is biologically pretty inert, as the MSDS shows, and if it's only on the O rings the quantity will be minute. Also it's not water soluble so should not come off into the water in any case.

Thanks for this. It makes sense. But how does CuSO4 catalyse this process?

Yeah, renormalisation. 👍 Cool.

Tell us about it and we can comment. (It's a rule of the forum that topics should not require participants to go off-site to another web address in order to find out what the topic is about.) Since physics has a satisfactory model of the photon already, perhaps the quickest way to elicit interest would be for you to describe what advantages this model has compared to the established one.

It's illustrating what can be made from what. A common game to test organic chemistry knowledge is to ask the student to show a route for synthesising a given compound, using only alkanes or something very simple as the starting point. We got very good at that in my first year at university. I still have a copy of R O C Norman's "Principles of Organic Synthesis" on my shelf. One learns a "vocabulary" of synthetic reactions, which can then be deployed to construct a wide range of molecules. This scheme shows you a range of steps that interconvert various types of organic functionality.