hypervalent_iodine

It was copied from here http://www.mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html

The simple answer to this is no. No one here will provide you information to illegally download books. Buy them.

What Phi for All said.

Her profile (as well as her other profile) states that she is from Romania and is of Roma decent. I don't think she really falls into that stereotype.

Instead of spouting on about how people haven't read this book of yours and therefore have no idea what they're on about, how about you give us a precis on what you believe is the most significant experiments and the 'evidence' that they present, etc? You can't possibly expect people to continue a conversation where your only counter argument is, 'read the book' (that being said, I suppose you did manage to carry on in a similar fashion for over 20 pages in another thread). The onus is on you to back up your claims, not us. I find this to be intellectually dishonest. It doesn't matter what section you try to hide it in, what you are trying to present here are scientific studies on consciousness (your words, not mine). If these are indeed 'scientific studies', then it follows that they must meet the same standard of scientific rigor that every other scientific study is held to. It doesn't matter how many times you bring up the same tired and circular arguments, philosophy really doesn't come into it.

I think most of this was already mentioned/answered in this thread if you look through it. Did you find out which polymer he wanted for the memory shape and fibre glass? Chances are they are amorphous as well. Whether or not polyethylene is amorpous depends on what type it is, as I said already. LDPE is amorphous, HDPE is not. Yes, there are different forms of tungsten, but I am not too familiar with the crystal structure. You should be able to look it up by searching beta crystal structure of tungsten, etc.. In any case, I went over all that on a previous post. The quartz crystal structure you already had. Form memory, the image you had linked was the alpha form. Yes. Have a look how it is drawn on wikipedia or have a look at how I drew the polyethylene a few posts back. If you were to draw it, you would simply draw a line between the Si and the C. Bear in mind that you can't isolate a single SiC molecule. The crystal structure is a continuous network of SiC units, all bound to one another. Yeah, that's the crux of it. Ionic bonds occur between a metal and a non-metal. Si and C are both non-metals, so do not form ionic bonds but rather covalent bonds.

You don't need to be an expert in whatever quackery you're promoting to know that what you described in no way constitutes evidence. That happens to be a fairly basic tenant of science and is not at all restricted to one or another discipline. The only purpose that I could see for reading a book or series of 'studies' that uses anecdotes as evidence is for amusement.

Resident experts don't nominate themselves for the title, you know. Even ignoring that, ad hom attacks are a silly way to hold a debate. If you have some evidential, scientific basis to argue the points brought up by D H or by other members, then do so.

Valence electrons only account for electrons found in the outer most 'shell', or highest energy level. The total number of electrons in nitrogen is 7 (not 15, I'm not sure where you got that number from), but 2 of those electrons are not valence electrons. They are found in the 1s orbital, whereas the rest are found in the 2s and 2p orbitals. Similarly, fluorine contains 2 electrons in the 1s orbital, 2 electrons in the 2s orbital and 5 electrons in the 2p orbitals, giving it a total valence electron count of 7. It might be worth reading the wiki article on valence electrons, or preferably a chemistry text book if you have access to one.

For the sake of clarity: (From here) That is an image of an ostrich leg rather than an emu, but the basic anatomy is the same. I think it makes a little more sense when you see the whole thing.

To be honest, neither do I, I was simply going off what I always see it banded under.

Yeah, sorry about the short post, I was packing up when I wrote it. Anyway, if you are interested in biologically applicable chemistry steer more towards organic chemistry and as Captain Panic suggested, pick up some biochem courses as well. I would also recommend doing medicinal chemistry courses as well as some cell biology and genetics.

Well, I appreciate the ego boost, but I'm sure you would have managed to learn at least something without me. If you have any more questions following discussion with your professor and/or during your break, feel free to come back and ask them.

Chemistry is considered a life science, so yes.

I would call that an exceptionally bad chemistry teacher. There is really no use in memorizing each reaction/equation as you come across it if you don't understand what's going on; the same thing can be said for all sciences. There is a certain degree of memory work as there is in any subject, but I am 100% against the notion that subjects such as chemistry should be treated as entirely based upon the ability to memorize every little thing. You don't learn anything from that. To me it sounds as though your teacher has no idea what he's talking about and rather than remedy the deficit in his own knowledge, he is instead passing on his lack of understanding to the students he teaches. Unfortunately, there is not much to be done about it from your position, so my recommendation to you would be to take the time out yourself to try and understand basic concepts of chemistry and see if you can apply these to the things you are being asked to memorize in class. If you can, get your hands on a general chemistry text and try reading through it and practicing the questions. Blackman is an excellent text, as are books by Zumdahl and Zumdahl or Pauling. As well, you are always welcome to ask here for clarification on things you're being taught.

The molecular formula of tungsten is simply W, so one molecule of tungsten is only one atom. The image you have is a crystal structure and it represents what many molecules look like when they stack together. All of the rest of your materials contain more than one atom within its molecular structure. The empirical formula of silicon carbide contains two atoms, SiC, and these are bound to other molecules of SiC in the crystal structure of the bulk material. It is a similar story with the rest of them. I couldn't tell you how many atoms are in the polymeric materials. You'll notice the image I included in post 7 contains two CH2 groups within brackets with a subscript 'n'. That n represents some integer value and tells you how many repeating units of CH2CH2 there are. The value of that number is not predefined and is not even consistent within a single sample of a material, so telling you how many atoms there are in those compounds is impossible to do. Also, as an aside. From our discussion here, it seems to me that it would be very much worth your while to take a general chemistry course. I'm not meaning to be insulting, I just think that having an idea of the fundamental concepts of chemistry would be valuable to you in your degree, which I think this assignment of yours has shown.

That is what I am saying, yes. H2O for instance contains 3 atoms; 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atoms. The polymeric materials you've listed can contain many hundreds or even thousands of atoms.

Just to clarify: are you asking for mechanistic information for the transformation of alkynes and alkenes into carbonyls?

Topic split from basic gravity questions. Please keep the speculations in the speculation forum. It's what it's here for.

Do you not find it a rather silly thing to ascribe observed natural phenomena to a fairy tale with no basis in reality and no evidence whatsoever just because science cannot explain every small process in full and exact detail?

It's correct for one isotope of Tungsten, that being 184W. Again, though, I'm very skeptical that you need Bohr diagrams. Is that really what your assignment is asking you for? You won't find those sorts of images for anything past one atom, as I have already stated. Those types of images don't really make concessions for chemical bonds, so they are useless for what you want. You can get just as much information about the atomic structure (and then some) by drawing them as per the normal chemical convention (as in my example of the polyethylene); all it requires is for you to know how to read the image. Yes, that image represents only a single atom and that atom is silicon. Silicon carbide is made up of a continual lattice of SiC. The second image you showed is one of many SiC polymorphs. I know I am And: No, there isn't one basic structure. There are a number of different polymers you can use. Have a look at the wikipedia page I linked a few posts back. You need to clarify what your professor wants in terms of atomic structure. I do not think it is the images you seem to be searching for.

I would assume there is only tungsten simply because that is what the question is asking you for. It can form a number of compounds, but your question only asks for tungsten, so you can assume it is asking for the crystal structure of only those atoms. Tungsten does in fact have allotropes (allotropes are different arrangements of the same molecule; diamond and graphite are allotropes of carbon, for instance), termed alpha, beta and gamma. I don't know terribly much about the last two, except that beta tungsten decomposes to alpha tungsten upon heating. All of the polymers definitely will, depending on how high the temperature is. I'm not so sure about the rest. Depending on the specific polymer, getting crystal structure might not be able to be achieved because they don't form proper crystals. Crystal structures are obtained using X-ray crystallography, which is a wonderful technique that is incredibly useful, but it does of course depend on the ability for the compound to form crystals. Semi-crystalline polymers such as LDPE wouldn't really work in this as it doesn't have the necessary molecular order. You'll have to tell me which ones you are talking about. Not a problem, that's what SFN is here for

To put it simply, a chemical compound is defined as a set number of atoms that are joined together by various chemical bonds in a specific arrangement. CO2 or water (H2O) are examples of a compound, which you might also refer to as a molecule of carbon dioxide or a molecule of water. "W" is the symbol for tungsten, as per the periodic table. Tungsten can form a number of different complexes with other atoms, by which I mean it can bond to various atoms and other compounds to form a rather wide array of molecular archetypes. Assuming you're after metallic tungsten, which is an array of just tungsten atoms, you would be looking for something similar to what was linked to you on chemicalforums. The bcc mentioned stands for body-centred cubic, which is a type of crystal structure and describes the way in which the atoms arrange themselves in space. It gives information on the symmetry of what's called the unit cell, which is useful for a number of reasons. You might like to read this wiki article on it. For polyethylene, the compound involved is a polymer of repeating ethyl units, as I showed in post #7. However, even though the title of this material links you to a specific compound, what it does not do is tell you what type of polyethylene you are dealing with. You can have things like low-density polyethylene (LDPE) or high-density polyethylene (HDPE) (among others), which is important for you since the major distinction between the two is the way in which they are packed together (I made a post on a similar topic once, which can be found here if you're at all interested in reading it). For the purposes of your assignment, I should think that you are after HDPE rather than LDPE. My reasoning is that the latter exhibits a larger degree of branching and is, IIRC, an amorphous or semi-crystalline solid - it packs together in a fashion similar to a bowl of spaghetti as a result of this. In comparison, HDPE has less branching and will therefore pack very tightly together and be as close to linear as a polymer can get, making it much easier for you to draw. Still, this is something worth checking with your professor. Fibre glass and memory shape polymers, as I mentioned, encompass a number of different compounds. If you are trying to draw these, you aren't going to be able to draw all the different polymers used, because there are simply too many. This is what I meant when I said you need to ask your professor for clarification - does he want a specific polymer, or is any example fine? In the case of the latter, fibre glass contains anything from epoxy resins to thermopolymers, so if you look up something along the lines of "thermopolymer + fibre glass", you should get some sort of list of the thermopolymers used in fibreglass. Similarly for the memory shape polymers, there is a wiki article that gives examples of the types of polymers used - things like polyurethanes, etc. The remaining materials are all very well defined compounds and you should have too much of an issue finding things on them. Try looking up the names of the compounds themselves in Wolfram alpha. Quite often Wolfram will give you information on the crystal structure, which is what you seem to be in need of. Hope that helps.

Well, the problem is still that a lot of your materials aren't specific to a particular compound, which is really not something we can help with. You will need to ask your professor what he wants - i.e. if any example is fine or if he wants a particular compound.

Kary Mullis and Peter Duesberg are another two I would add to that list. Also, this guy, whose most recent paper is rather eloquently summed up by this article from Ars Technica.