Greippi

Eeek, your picture isn't showing up.

A computer model might tell you what you're looking for though! And once you know how something works via experiments like that, you can then go back to computer models for example design of proteins with new function. The stuff I do, we have the mathematical models, then we go see what the protein actually does, and see how it fits with the model.

I SEE! You should have said that in the first place haha. Shift those hydrogens coming out vertical up one place so they're on the carbons and your first structure is correct for the flat structure. Like so: Do you need to draw the "3D" structure showing what planes everything is in? If so, then you need to show the directions those hydrogens on the left are going in, and you could refine that even more to make the bond to the H on the O-H bent a bit because of the two pairs of lone electrons on the O.

Your hydrogen atom on the left has 3 bonds coming from it. This is not correct. The carbon on the left has 5 bonds coming from it, this is not correct either. The O-H part is the only correct part of your first molecule.

Which part exactly are you having problems with?

You need to think about the number of covalent bonds each atom likes to make (due to the amount of electrons in the outer shell). For a start, hydrogen only makes one bond (only one electron in its outer shell, to fill the shell it needs 2 electrons - so it makes one bond with one other atom), so that one on the left is right out. A carbon atom makes 4 bonds (4 electrons in its outer shell, to fill the shell it needs 4 more). An oxygen makes 2 bonds. Think about that and jiggle it around a bit.

2,2-dimethylpropane (aka neopentane, sometimes it's just called dimethylpropane). But if you're naming it systemically, you have to include the 2,2- part so it's unambiguous about exactly where those methyl groups are situated.

Could be. Could be enzyme-substrate interactions. Could be other things. Well from my point of view, that's used for when something can't easily be shown experimentally (in vivo or in vitro as apposed to in silico). Empirical evidence if at all possible is always preferential. I see no reason why physics should be confined to computer models. Biology is the study of teh chemistry of life. Chemistry is basically physics. So it's all the same really. Why should there be boundaries? I wouldn't want to restrict myself to one area, when they can all work together.

It's a pretty huge field. The biophysics I'm interested in is related to protein folding/unfolding processes - this can be studied using a wide variety of spectroscopic techniques such as NMR, CD, fluorescence etc. The main problem/goal in this field is fully understanding the weak interactions that "hold a protein together" such as H-bonds, van der waals... and how tehy all work together. There's also other kinetics such as enzyme kinetics. Key areas of study with this field would include understanding photosynthesis and the ribosome. The work I would be doing if I go in to this field would be more to do with with experimental techniques to 'prove' predictions made by mathematics or computer models. You can't really separate the two.

Really off topic here, but this part does actually make sense. There was a high instance of kuru (prion disease like CJD) in a tribe of Papua New Guinea who were cannibals and ate human brains.

Or 8 UK Pennies.

28 paper clips.

Man was created to have free will - that's the point. When Satan tempted Eve to eat the fruit, evil was introduced because she made that choice. I think the other key is the fruit they ate - from "tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

Enzyme Q10 is an enzyme in the electron transport chain. It is taken as a supplement by people who can't produce enough of it themselves. People with mitochondrial disorders are often prescribed various vitamins and other supplements, but whether these work very well or not is questionable. Other approaches are genetic approaches.

I'd not commit the crime in the first place. If it's too late, I'd run around faster than the speed of light and go back in time.

Since you can't prove God with science...I can't remember how I was going to finish this sentence. However, the more I discover, the more obvious it becomes to me that there is some sort of intelligent design to it all.

The Hafele-Keeling experiment observed gains and losses of time by atomic clocks flown on commercial airliners. This experiment has since been repeated.

There are many molecular processes within the cell that seem pretty unbelievable from an evolutionary perspective, for example the molecular motor seen in ATP synthase. While it is mind blowingly amazing, it's not "irreducibly" complex. A study of similar proteins and equivalent proteins in different organisms starts to build up a picture of its history. The evolutionary history of many proteins can be traced back so that it can be seen how a protein evolves (new) function over time. You can't say something "couldn't" have arisen by evolution, merely that it might be extremely unlikely. I don't know anything about the evolution of kinesin though, I couldn't find much literature on it, sorry.

That's it, thank you very much.

This has been in the news lately. "Getting less than six hours sleep a night can lead to an early grave, UK and Italian researchers have warned." I've been getting lots of non-sciency people asking me about this as they're very skeptical. Does anyone have the reference for the paper this refers to so I can be a bit more informed? As far as I can tell, the results of this study were actually published in 2007.

There was a special issue about this in New Scientist a few years back. I'll distill the gist of it later.

Oh okay fair enough maybe I am going mad, but I thought e.g. 13C could too.

A very quick literature search turned up quite a few results! Cellulose peroxides derived from carbonylated cellulose and hydrogen peroxide Hitoshi Kubota, Yoshitaka Ogiwara Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 1980 Volume 25 Issue 4, Pages 683 - 689

Studying for third year exams, but I still have another year left as I'm on a masters degree.

What sort of NMR was it? 1H?