Horza2002

No you cant. Electronegativity is not a physical property it is just used to explain things. You have too look them up

Hi, can someone explain to me. or provide some good information on how a linear free energy relationship relates to a mechanism. I have found one example where: [CoX(NH3)5]2+ + H2O <--> [Co(NH3)5(OH2)] + X If log (equi constant on the x axis) and log ( forward rate constant) on y-axis, the graph has a gradient of 1. It then goes onto say that this implies a dissociative mechanism....I just dont see how that applies

In principle yes they will...most atoms do decay evetnually....although some of them take 1,000,000s years!

Hey thanks to everyone for the replies!! With that said, wouldn't the solar wind (the stream of partciles from the sun) have more of a pushing effect on the sails rather than the light?

Hey. Ive seen recently in the news about ligh sails for space crafts. apparently they work by reflecting photons of light backwards and some momentum transfered from the photon to the sail. However, I thought that photons where massless and therefore had no momentum. Anyone know how these work?

You need to remember that particles are not particles....they are particles and also waves. so density on the qutanum scale loses its meaning compared to classical items. Even protons can be treated in a classical manor to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Just a note, quarks are not considered fundamental particles because they are never observed on their own. They are always bound to at least one other quark or more commonly two others. Your right in that they dont appear to be amde of anything else but just thought I'd tell you that! Electrons are, however, considered fundamental since they can be observed on their own

can the public even by Rb and Cs given their extreme danger?

do you mean why are the 3d orbitals filled before the 4s?

You should work out the Gibbs free energy for each reaction. The one that is most negative will be the one which dominates

2. Yes your right, if you move the slits further apart, they will get to a point where u get more classical behaviour (as in the particles will go through one slit or the other). If I remember rightly, once the gap is larger than the wavelenght of the wave, it becomes clasical again....but I don't know y that is. I suppose I should mention that when the slits are close together, if you attempted to measure which slit the particles went through, then you would see that you find out which slit it goes through BUT the interferance pattern resulting would be different from when you were not measuring the slits. Just a thought you might find interesting.

I'd also like to point out that the ancient Romans noticed that when you had a headache and sucked the bark of a willow tree, the headache went away. That is because willow bark contains salalic acid. Aspirin is the methyl ester of salalic acid... so its been around for a long time!

I would go and looks up nucleisynthesis. And also about the strong nuclear force...they should help you get going

1. Radioactive decay is a spontaneous, random process. Spontaneous means that no outside infulence (e.g. volume, temperature, pressure) will affect the rate of decay. Random means that you cannot predict which atom will decay exactly whn. So no, increasing the temperature does not alter the rate of decay. 2. The one thing you need to remember when dealing with quantum ideas is that common sence and everyday experiences do not apply. The double split experiment was used to show that partciles (which people beleived where little blobs of matter) where actually waves (like ripples in a pond). What this experiment shows is that the "particle" goes through both slits *AT THE SAME TIME*. This gave the most credible evidence at the time for what is know known as wave-particle duality. Now, you can treat "particles" as waves or particles depending on the circumstance. In electronics, electrons are usually treated as particles (blobs of matter) where as in chemistry electrons are treated as waves....that is simply because they work best for their own circumstances. Sorry thats a bit long winded. 5. Sorry not sure about that one....not entirely sure what a collpased wavefunction is (im an organic chemist so not exactly my area of expertise). 6. I dont understand what you mean by this question. Hopefully thats helped a little

As a film it was ok; plenty of action scenes and the specila effects where good. But from a science point of view, I don't think I've seen a film that is so far from the truth in my life! Top marks to the main characters for out running a Yellowstone pyroclastic flow though...thats got to be a 100m dash world record

2. The doible slits are typically around 10nm apart if I remember rightly...but that depends on the wavelength of light your using (have a look for Youngs double split equation) 3. I don't think they would, unless the radiation emmited caused some of the atoms in tha body to become unstable in which case you might still be radioactive afterwards. I think people stay "radioactive" because they have become contaminated by whatever material was decaying in the first place. 4. Again it depnds on what type of radiation. High energy alpha particles would still be stopped before a few centimeters of air while high energy gamma would need a few meters of lead to stop them. 7. From a chemists point of ciew, it means that no two electrons in a single atom can have exactly the same set of quantum numbers (n, l, ml and ms). If they did they would be occupying exactly the same region of space with is not allowed. A Fermion is a class of particle (I think with a spin = 1/2).

I think if you add H+ ions then you will get a decrease in -OH resulting from le Chatleir principle

I think that 17 uses the dihydroylation using osmium tetroxide. 18 will be a hydrogenation using D2 Lindlars catalyst to get the cis deterium Not sure about 19 20 will be using LiAlD4 as the reagent

Good luck everyone tring to get techtinium!

In theory you might be able to....you'd have to remove the water from a solution to make it more concentrated...however I really doubt you'd 1. be allowed to do it and 2. your glassware would survive!

Who said that anions are unstable....what we said that was O- was very unstable especially as it would b a radical anion. It would rapidly (in the range of pico seconds) abstract a hydrogen from anything to give the hydroxide anion.

yer thats right. Its just the two affects competeing against each other and that ratio is the result

The O- ion is impossible to exists...its far to unstable!! The dianion might exist in extreme conditions but not the O- ion

Your right, when considering the electronic effect of the anomeric effect should have the hydroxyl group in the axial position. But you also have to consider the steric effects. If you look up chair conformations it should explain that groups are more stable in the equatorial poistion. With the hydroxyl group in the axila position, it essentially bangs into the group that are on the 3 and 5 carbons and so disfavours the axial position. The observed ratio of isomers results from the compraimse between these two effects

I shall have a look through my inorganic books and hopefully be able to you a reference for it. The main account for hybdrisation is that the orbtials are close enough in energy to overlap. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_hybridisation That doesn't have some pictures but shows where sp3d hybridisation occurs

There are only a few reactions in organic chemistry that are even close to being 100%. Without knowing the exact procedure....i guess some was lost via work up and side reactions...generally 70-80% yields are considered excellent