hypervalent_iodine

If the OP has specific enzymes in mind, and a closely related fungi with an annotated genome exists, they could use that to design primers and sequence the enzymes. It’s relatively easy (I can do it for instance, and I only pretend to sometimes be a biologist) and cheap, though it does rely pretty heavily on good primer design and some knowledge of codon bias. NGS seems like overkill for something like this, for the reasons CharonY mentioned.

It happens all the time.

Both singingspirit05 and poo thrower have been placed into the mod queue. The former for using this site as their pulpit and the second for making a stream of incoherent posts against the spirit of this forum.

ritastrakosha has been permanently banned as a result of their constant deluge of nonsensical and somewhat offensive posts.

No one here is going to help obtain illegal copies of the software, I'm afraid. I have had a quick look at a user manual for the machine you have, and I'm not too sure why you need the software, which is mostly for processing (and for which there are a number of free alternatives). The display screen on the unit should show you the data output from full scans etc. when you run them, which you are able to pick peaks on and read out absorbances. From what I can tell, the machine can be connected to a printer and you can use that to print out anything you see on the display screen. It's not overly sophisticated, but I can't think of any free software that operates in the way you need.

I should have added the caveat of if she chooses to do it in Brisbane. I don’t actually know if the Gold Coast campuses offer science, but UQ requires high school chemistry or physics in addition to a particular stream of math to get in. My understanding of the OP was that she either didn’t meet those requirements or it’s been so long that any knowledge that was there is gone now. It’s very common. As I mentioned, the major unis offer bridging courses in the case that the entry requirements aren’t met. If they have been, then I know at least at UQ they offer a high school equivalent chemistry course as a first year offering, which is a great course for people in her position taught by excellent staff (no points for guessing which uni I went to). I’m sure QUT would have something similar, and probably Griffith as well. They all have academic advisors available who can help her figure it out.

As the only one here with direct experience with where the OP is from and the universities she has access too, I can tell you that she will need chemistry just to get into the degree, and will almost certainly need to do one or both first year chemistry courses.

I wouldn’t worry too much about OP, really what matters is your commitment to studying and doing the work. I’ve known plenty of middle of the road OP students do very well once they hit uni. I don’t know where in QLD you are, but QUT and UQ in Brisbane both have bridging courses you could look at doing to help fill the gap in your knowledge and tick off any pre requisite boxes you haven’t ticked. They can be fast paced, but my experience tutoring students in it is that if you spend enough time practicing questions and going over the content, you’ll come out of it fine. Speak to the universities and see what they say. There are a lot of resources available if you are struggling, including access to free counselling if you need it.

I believe any volatile compound it dissolves in is fine then, just so long as it’s fully evaporated before you place it on the agar.

If they’re soluble in buffer, is it possible to instead measure MIC with microbroth dilution? I’ve never been a great fan of disk diffusion personally. There are just too many other things that can influence zone of inhibition.

! Moderator Note Sorry, but this is complete gibberish. Moved to trash. I would strongly encourage you to look into what frequency actually means and how it is used in science.

Side note: they believe that because the LNP and Murdoch press convinced them to believe it, presumably to detract from their own accountability in all of this. It simply wasn’t / isn’t the Greens policy. A topic for another thread, however. Certainly, fuel reduction has been an issue. I mentioned this elsewhere, but after the Black Saturday fires in 2009, it was identified as such, but nothing has been done really. However, it’s only one factor of many, and it’s short sighted you say that it will fix the issue going forward. It is not a cure all, and it doesn’t always work (but it can help). The reason climate change is implicated is because as it gets hotter and drier, the presence of undergrowth no longer really matters - the fire will spread anyway. There is an article on the ABC that I thought was well laid out that covers the topic. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-10/hazard-reduction-burns-bushfire-prevention-explainer/11853366

Some targets look deceptively easy just because they're small. You received some synthetic advice over on Chemical Forums that looks good, so I won't bother too much with that. I would add a small word of caution that sometime you end up sinking more time and money into making a target than what you would have spent if you just bought it. This compound is commercially available and quite cheap. Alfa sells 5 g for a bit over $23. I don't know where you are based or what resources you have access to, but were I your position, I would just order it.

The point of determining the oxidation state is really just so you can determine what number to put in brackets. In your case, so you know that it is iron(III) oxide and not iron(II) oxide. You've already shown how you got to the oxide part.

It was over 2 years ago, there’s really no point. I more meant why do need this specific chemical in such amounts? There are certainly cheaper and easier ways of learning about synthesis.

No point. I have no idea why they did it. You mean like a discussion forum like this one? Chemical forums is good. Can I ask what you're needing this stuff for?

I have ordered things from random Chinese companies in the past, and I did in fact receive what I wanted, but their packaging and labelling leaves much to be desired. I received 10 grams of a beige power in a zip lock bag (!!) with a totally different label on it. The declaration for customs said it was something that it wasn't, which is obviously illegal. It was definitely worth it for the price ($600 instead of $3k), but we won't order from them again. I've had friends order antibodies from other companies there and receive them fine, but the packaging said that they were shipping empty tubes. Like I said, you can order from them at your own risk.

Add to that list, 4D-Math.

Yes, though I wouldn't recommend directly copy pasting from another website when their background is quite so blue if you don't want to be caught out plagiarising (I assume that came from here https://lavelle.chem.ucla.edu/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23108). You should try and think about it yourself next time.

Did you not already explain what is wrong with it in your first sentence?

Most students I've encountered find a table to be quite helpful with these questions, though this is probably not a complicated enough example to really warrant it. Your answer is fine.

It doesn't really add anything to your answer. The ferric and ferrous stuff is kind of irrelevant here (you're not being asked about that nomenclature). To answer your previous question, I thought I had posted a link for you last night but I guess it didn't post. Have a look through this https://www.chemguide.co.uk/inorganic/redox/oxidnstates.html I would highly recommend chemguide as a resource for all of your future questions before posting here. They are very thorough.

I would delete the very last part about 3d orbitals and just end with 10 electrons. Also, this: Doesn't make a lot of sense. The chlorine atoms in PCl3 and PCl5 have 7 valence electrons. Where did you get 5 from? Besides this, your answer is mostly okay but you could explain it a little better. For example, why does PCl5 need to have an expanded octet around the phosphorus? This is the crux of the question, but I don't think you've given a good enough explanation for why it is.

Sure, I’m not disagreeing with that. I’m only discussing this further because you made a point of mentioning it and suggested Rachel stick to dots when she hadn’t been using them and her structures were fine. The question used dots, sure, but that doesn’t she’ll be marked down for using the notation she did in her OP. Agreed! At least here, a lot of the problem (and I’m talking beyond Lewis notation) is born from the mouths of high school chemistry teachers who aren’t really that well equipped to be teaching chemistry, largely because they aren’t required to take that much of it themselves at university. A topic for another time though.

Yes, you could go through the process of calculating the oxidation state to show conclusively that it is Fe3+.