Fuzzwood

Then you probably have a calculus book covering the chapter of integration?

Your equation for the equilibrium is wrong. You square the part for the starting materials while this does not have a stoiciometric coefficient.

I have a hard time seeing adamantium claws growing out of someone's knuckles. But apparently that is possible now, given your sources.

If you are in it for the money, science is not the way to go in most cases.

That was exactly what I was getting at. That rearrangement costs energy, although it is the most stable product. At low temperatures, water leaves the molecule, giving you 1-methyl-1-vinylcyclopentane. At higher temperatures, the ring will rearrange to give the more stable 1,2-dimethylcyclohexene.

No I am not familiar, I didn't learn that yet.

And.......... what exactly is preventing you from looking it up?

Are you familiar with the terms kinetic and thermodynamic product? If so, what is more stable: a terminal alkene or an internal alkene?

Do you also get that L-arginine is not a gas but a solid? Ergo, L-arginine is NOT nitric oxide, something which you do seem to believe.

Well, that would have a similar structure as acetic anhydride, but with an adamantane group dangling from either end. Ferrocene is not an acid. It is a Fe²⁺ ion sandwitched by two cyclopentadiene anions.

However, if one of those rings has a carboxylic acid function, then yes it might be possible.

That's because your arm isn't a rigid body but rotates around your shoulder. You can't expect to balance a skip, sit on one end and stay in the same position either.

It is not evil since it's simply comprised out of 2 natural aminoacids and a tiny bit of methanol, for which you need to eat 10s of grams of sweetener of to reach the same levels as found in a single apple.

All preservatives are chemicals, not all chemicals are preservatives. Preservatives are made from atoms, ergo they are chemicals. In the cases you mention, these preservatives stem from natural sources (but are still chemicals) and the first one is actually an amino acid playing an intergral and irreplacible part in our biological functions.

 

To reduce your intake of chemicals, the answer is simple: eat less. If you worry about those things however, look at the label of the products you are buying.

You realize that everything is made up of chemicals right?

... Explain with the H+ dissociation

So why don't you give that a try?

the energy released by the spring is definitely greater than the energy required to wind the spring, if you take the rotational energy slowly...

No it isn't.

Why would it suck? It will open new research field? Perhaps remove the tinfoil hat and the notion that this site is somehow a conspiracy against your person...

What's stopping you from trying it and see if there are noticable difference in CO2 uptake whether or not electricity is applied?

You misunderstand my statements:

 

1) CO2 can react indeed with organic materials, which has nothing to do with your experiment. Don't draw red herrings in.

2) You stated that currently scrubbers use organic material. I showed you an example of a scrubber system where that clearly is not the case.

strange,

if a cathode could attract co2

It cannot as CO₂ is a neutral molecule which does not have a dipole moment.

chances are the amount that would adhere to it would be limited. This would allow co2 gases to escape the solution. When a solution slows, it can also outgas. and with a cathode being a barrier to flow, it might allow for both requirements to be met.

with current scrubbers, they are using organic material that co2 bonds with.

Since when is an ammonia solution organic? Bubbling CO₂ through a concentrated ammonia solution yields urea which is a solid

this requires both cooling and heating. with what I am suggesting, it would be to see if co2 gas itself could be attracted to a solution. and since vacuum is the absence of pressure, typically anything less than about 1.031 kgf/cm^2 is considered as such.

I sincerely hope that you realize that a vacuum means an absence of ALL gases. Introducing CO₂ in a vacuum chamber means that the vacuum is LOST, since the chamber DOES contain a gas now.

and with the diagram I showed, it is a basic experiment. if it doesn't work, not much is lost. if however co2 does collect in the chamber with the solution, then it's something to consider.

And since it is a basic set up, it would be easy to modify it to see if passing co2 through the solution has much of an effect on co2 extraction. this would probably require a different exhaust. and for this experiment, if the co2 exhausted through another chamber and then to the atmosphere, that'd be okay. after all, it's a basic experiment where the volume of gases would be minimal.

Ever opened a coke bottle? Dissolved CO₂ right there, stored in water as carbonic acid.

Putting a current on water would either electrolyze the water or do nothing at all. No net charge will remain. Pure water does not conduct electricity.

Is this gonna be yet another electric universe bullshit topic? If so, please mention that in the title so you won't waste my 5 seconds clicking on it.

Which doesn't make any sense at all. Stop wasting your and our time.

We can't explain something, therefore goddidit. Time is not a conscious entity.

So, again, why don't you attempt it first?

There are also way more atoms than monkeys with typewriters. Also note that one monkey will not influence the other monkey to type specific sequences, something that simple molecules DO. Charges influence and induce other charges.

 

First learn some chemistry and biochemistry. Then try to talk about science in those fields.