mississippichem

Both forms are correct as long as formal charges are adjusted accordingly. They are both resonance forms of the same molecule. Don't make the mistake of thinking the molecule cycles between resonance forms though. In reality, nitrous oxide exists as a "resonance hybrid" of the two forms. This is the result of the "de-localization" of electrons that exists in all systems involving [ce] \pi [/ce] bonds.

Except, you haven't established that expiration of the tax cuts will magnify uncertainty, will impact the S&P 500 negatively, or lead to economic instability. The heart of my suggestion is that there are benefits to extending the cuts, but the benefits of letting them expire are FAR greater. I supported this with a plethora of posts in the aforementioned thread already. Let's take the discussion there if needed.

federalreserve.gov

-from the WSJ

-read page 66

Though not the major cause of market rallies, it is well documented that tax relief can cause market gains or keep values from falling. Should we split this thread or continue on an older one?

And I appreciate your opinion on the matter, but you have not defined "foolish." I have demonstrated, multiple times and with an abundance of evidence and references, in the aforementioned thread on Bush Tax cuts why extending them brings with it costs which far outweigh the benefits.

Yes, if the goal is to generate government revenue. What about the effects on market activity? Namely trade volume. Low trade volume serves to propagate uncertainty in the market, especially in these days were technical trend analysis is popular.

Cost/benefit analysis is subjective in the sense that you and I will probably not agree completely on the priority of benefits. You may site increased tax revenue as a benefit, where as I might look to less volatility in the S&P 500 as a benefit, as ultimately that leads to economic stability.

When I say foolish, I mean it in the sense that it seems counterproductive to create policies (or let policies expire) that will serve to propagate or even amplify the already rampant uncertainty in the financial sector.

In a society with open information, there is deception and misleading statements on every side of policy debates. Studies indicate propaganda is effective only when information is limited or other forms of coercion/control are employed. Some may have been misled but on the whole I would disagree.

 

Your argument stands only when you assume that voters actually make the effort to look up all the information available in their free country. But voters actually behave like consumers of toothpaste. They will not make an objective analysis of the patents and publications of the manufacturer, or the list of ingredients and their proven effect on the health of their teeth on the long term. They will base their decision on the advertisements, and the packaging and presentation in the shop... despite the availability of the information.

How does his argument only stand when voters have and use all available information? The more information that is available to the public, the less effect one piece of information will have. Of course voters don't make truly objective analysis of candidates and/or policies, but does anyone really? Democracy doesn't ensure that voters will make wise decisions, they never do, but it only ensures that they will have the complete freedom to make wise or stupid decisions without the influence of active coercion. Both parties in the USA are guilty of propaganda through misleading information. How is one liar better than another?

So, my point is that information is actually limited - not because of unavailability, but because of an overload of information. We can no longer process all available information... but parties are able to flood practically all the media with their nonsense. And we all help them by copying, changing, adapting and manipulating all the crap they say... flooding the internet's politics forums.

 

Note that this issue is worldwide, and certainly not limited only to the USA.

Captain Panic, I agree with this very much. Especially the part about an overload of information. It is unfortunate that we live in a society where there is so much bad information that much of the good information is buried under a pile of feces that no one has the time or will to dig through.

_________________________________________________________________________

P.S. What was this thread about to begin with?

Perhaps because it was not as large as it should have been to counter the huge problem we faced? The only rolling in that particular burial ground is surely more aligned with my description than yours.

It wasn't large enough in areas that actually stimulate the economy:

Fiscal Multipliers; by Antonio Spilimberg...

You'll notice that this work is compiled from the work of many economists. You'll also notice the small or even negative multiplier values from some categories of spending. However, notice the gigantic 1.5 next to military spending.

The healthcare bill was meant to address issues in healthcare, not job growth or monetary policy.

True, but could they have picked a worse time to execute such a plan? In a time where many are already angry about government spending? It wasn't meant to address monetary policy. I wasn't even talking about monetary policy though. I was talking about fiscal policy, which it wasn't meant to address either, but that doesn't stop it from causing a weak market in a time of rampant market uncertainty does it? Only the federal reserve has much of a say in monetary policy anyway. Ben Bernanke refusing to switch over to "easy money policy" right now is the only thing keeping us afloat.

Unless you make more than $250K per year, you will not see tax increases. The hikes you mention impact only the richest top 1% of the country, and even there most impact only the top 1 tenth of 1 percent. See the Bush Tax Cuts thread for evidence in support of this assertion.

Who do you think buys most of the securities on Wall Street that keep the "working man's" retirement plan above water? Who do you think employs people in local and regional businesses? Letting the Bush Tax cuts expire now, regardless of your ideological opinion of them, is foolish. I have no problem with a progressive agenda. I just have a problem with one in times when we can't afford it. If our economy tanks, we can't afford all the nice liberal amenities.

There have been gains, though. Try to avoid phrasing things in absolutist terms or you become immediately wrong... Always... All the time. ;-)

I'll give you that, albeit grudgingly . I'm a victim of my own syntax. Care to explain the gains? pardon the rhyme.

Pauling Electronegativity is defined by the following equation:

[math] \chi_{\rm A} - \chi_{\rm B} = ({\rm eV})^{-1/2} \sqrt{E_{\rm d}({\rm AB}) - [E_{\rm d}({\rm AA}) + E_{\rm d}({\rm BB})]/2} [/math]

Here it is expressed as the difference in electronegativity between two bonded atoms. But what is the origin of this electronegativity difference? The answer lies in the concept of effective nuclear charge:

[math] Z_{\mathrm{eff}}= Z - s.\, [/math]

Where "Z" is the atomic number and "s "is the electronic shielding constant for an electron. (finding an s value can be cumbersome, sometimes they are listed in tables).

So when elements with different formal charges/oxidation states and different effective nuclear charges are bonded together. There must be unequal "sharing" of electrons. I put the word sharing in quotes because you shouldn't think of this as a simple back and forth sharing of a particle. It is more of a shift in the probability density of in the bonding molecular orbital wave functions.

So this unequal sharing, if unequal enough, will cause a slight overall charge difference between the two bonded atoms. Which actually serves to strengthen the bond as well (known as ionic contributions to a covalent bond). This is apparent in the Pauling E.N. equation above as he has included terms for an AA, BB, and AB bond, accounting for differing degrees of polarity or ionic forces.

The above diagram is nice but doesn't account for the differing sizes of the fluorine and hydrogen atom to scale.

Check wikipedia, their article on electronegativity is good, and is where I got my above equations.

Bascule, as far as Fox News being an arm of the Republican party, I agree.

But I wouldn't put much stock in your example about the campaign contributions:

Politico Article

Does this make BP an extension of the Democratic Party? My point being that often times corporations make campaign contributions for reasons which are not always apparent. BP would be thought by many to have an ideology quite different from that of President Obama.

I'm not saying that Fox News made their contribution with some ulterior motive, I'm just saying let's be careful not to jump to any conclusion. There could be a dirtier reason; or not!?

I agree with 99% of your statements concerning Fox, but I have beef with your Democratic congressional spending comments:

...Democrats are spending like crazy and the deficit is insane and it's all their fault! People fear all of this crazy shit that's not really happening, and they vote!

Look, I consider myself Libertarian, so I would also contest much of the Bush spending; but one can't deny that the recent spending by the Dem. majority congress has been outrageous. I'm even okay with some Keynesian economics, but Keynes rolled over in his grave because of the recent stimulus bill!

The stimulus plan was built on solid principles, but the logistics of how it was executed are ignorant at best. A large portion of the money was spread out over the next few years which negates the purpose of said stimulus [to inflate our way out of recession]. Also, much of the money was spent on public incentives with low or negative multipliers. All the social welfare spending, along with the health care massacre, is not doing much if anything to stimulate job growth, or to tighten monetary policy. The phrase "jobless-recovery", conveniently coined by the administration is an insult to my intelligence. What is a recovery then? So we are left with an egregious amount of debt, a "jobless-recovery?" facing rampant tax hikes in a time of low market activity, and might I add that Gitmo is still operational?

My problem lies in the amount of spending compared to the amount of progress. I wouldn't mind the spending as much if it all wasn't for petty political gain.

Even many liberals are angry at the lack of real progress. It seems that all our money has been spent for absolutely no gain.

Oh sorry, I assumed you were trying to get the tetra-ammine complex. Where's the IUPAC when you need them?

no, i first have to make the copper(II) sulphate, but the ammonia should be provided

Oh okay. mix a soluble copper salt with a soluble sulfate salt in aqueous solution. Then just play the solubility ballgame to make your copper sulfate percipitate out, or get the other compound to percipitate out and evaporate the solution to dryness.

For an investigation i've got to do in A-level Chemistry, i need to make Copper(II) Ammonium sulphate from scratch, could anyone please help me out as to how to do this as i haven't got a clue what to use

When you say from scratch, do you mean from anhydrous copper(II) sulphate? If so, just dissolve the copper(II) sulphate in a concentrated aqueous solution of ammonia [also known as ammonium hydroxide]. This should form the complex [ce] [Cu(NH_3 )_4 ] SO_4 [/ce] which is what you were looking for I believe.

Not making a comment on the ethics of the death penalty. But I feel, unless someone has a mental retardation that is extremely obvious, IQ shouldn't have much sway in deciding their punishment (whatever that may be). Once IQ matters in determining your punishment, then one is faced with the highly arbitrary decision of deciding where the "handicap-cutoff" is. I mean is it 70, 73, 72.8734219 ? Then you've got the margin of error to deal with as was mentioned in an earlier post.

If murderer A has an IQ of 69, and murderer B has an IQ of 72, is murderer A spared the harsh penalty because he can solve a puzzle just a little worse than murderer B? This just seems very arbitrary to me.

I have planned to protect the instrument inside airtight glass casing. Only The complex shapes made of glass inside the instrument will be replaced by gel.

A little color is tolerable. But not like agar gel which finally turns yellow.

Some hair gels are completely colorless. But Is it possible to make a cheap(cheaper than shaped glass) water-based gel?

See the wikipedia article for aerogel. That's the closest thing I can think of. There they're hard to make though, and are fairly hygroscopic (water makes them lose their transparency).

Edited for stupidity

No 0.01/0.1 = 0.1 so it will be diluted by a factor of 10 just as you would expect if you add 90 ml solvent to 10 ml solute.

Sorry, not to be picky. But the above calculation doesn't account for the complex relationship between solvent/solute volume and solution volume. Though your extrapolation is reasonable and approximately correct for the general chemistry student, the volume of solute can't really be claimed. Sorry again, you can accuse me of being a "purist" if you want.

However, the number I have arrived at time and time again (-176kJ/mol) is not the accepted standard enthalpy of formation for NH4CL, -314.43kJ/mol.

this number is for the solid state reaction. Your calculated value is for the aqueous solution I believe.

Try manipulating the equation for the Beer-Lambert law, as far as concentration goes.

Getting two peaks in your spectrum? what was [math] \lambda [/math] for the two peaks?

Typical spin. If you want to make it seem big, use the number, and if you want it to seem small, cite the percentage. Works in reverse, too. If two people died this year from some exotic circumstance while last year only one did, tell us that the death rate doubled in just one year if you want to call attention to the issue.

Sadly this is used often. Even more sad...it works. It's reasonable to say that most people took elementary school mathematics, but then one starts to wonder.

I think many do not understand the difference between a false statement and an intentionally misleading statement. Usually politicians statements are for the most part true [argue here], but they are almost always misleading when they discuss economic or budget numbers. I've also seen a lot of statistical "fudging" done on the subject of immigration in the US, from bot sides of the argument. They just play with confidence intervals, sample sizes and parameters until they get the number that supports their argument upon laymens' examination, which is not hard to accomplish.

This will never happen, but I wish public speakers of all types would give all the relevant statistical modifiers along with their beloved percentage.

This is why I request that this thread be genuinely considered as an epistemological inquiry into the terms that we use but do not necessarily agree upon.

 

I think that atheism can be consistent with pantheism.

I agree. Pantheism ~ Atheism in my opinion. Saying that god is inherently in everything is the same as saying that there is no god, in net effect. I have a friend who could be said to be a pantheist, every time we discuss/debate it ends in a semantics argument. I've tried to convince him he's just an atheist in disguise, where as I'm an atheist with a t-shirt. If god is everything, then he has the same effect as a non-existent god. It's like thermodynamics, the true amount of energy doesn't matter as much as the change between two measured values. God being everything equates to no "change in God" from object to object, or place to place.

I asked my physical chemistry professor what the real advantage to the Born-Oppenheimer approximation was; he said:

"So you won't have to become a physicist".

I wanted to do this reaction with a type of test tube under an atmosphere of chlorine under pressure (because of the production of chlorine, which is produced in an Erlenmeyer flask) at 900 degree Celsius and condensing the gas into another test tube which has at -20 degrees Celsius.

 

I know the hazard of chlorine, titanium dioxide and TiCl4.

 

You're making the chlorine in situ? That's two hazardous reactions going on at the same time, brave.

We've all heard the cubic time, cubic god, language and education are evil stuff before, 7th. We dismissed it as nonsense last time because the guy presenting it kept talking in circles and kept trying to redefine well established concepts and definitions. All your arguments sound disturbingly similar, you've been here before haven't you? Klaplunk?

Sodium bicarbonate is already present in many of the foods we eat. Taking large amounts of sodium bicarbonate will only through off your digestive pH balance.

Cancer is not a fungus. It is a malignant and rapidly spreading DNA sequence that causes cells to function abnormally. Most effective chemotherapy drugs somehow involve intercalation and alteration of cancerous DNA.

I want to Syntesis TiCl4, here I find this reaction:

TiO2 + 2Cl2 + C > TiCl4 + CO2

I know that this reaction occurs around 900 degree celcius.

If you think that this reaction is possible with borosilicate glassware please tell my.

 

 

30122929-Titanium-Compounds-Inorganic.pdf

I've always been told by professors that borosilicate glassware reaches its "softening" point around 800-830 C. So I wouldn't try it. The titanium dioxide will still be solid at this temperature, but I still wouldn't want a room full of chlorine (the product will also be a nasty hot, volatile liquid). I bet there's a way to catalyze this reaction at a lower temperature...

EDIT: 830 C, not 330 C, sorry

Chemical equilibrium problems are often "rounded off" for first year chemistry classes in the name of simplicity. Often, activity coefficients are neglected altogether. This is a reasonable approximation in an aqueous solution of simple salts that is not highly concentrated.

7th:

 

What does your theory predict that can be tested?

=Uncool-

Yes, I don't even think it makes a prediction at all, most less a testable one.

All you've done is focus on P=NP nothing more. You haven't touched the 'theory', but rather pick out little parts of it. That's not science.

No, that's just what science is. Confirming that your first, and seemingly central, hypothesis is viable before moving any further.

It is a major contaminant in many of our lakes and rivers with concentrations reported near 55 M !