apathy

oh so they say that saturated fats are bad for our heealth because it is stable and will remain in our body right? Ah.. and unsaturated fats are good because it is unstable and will sort of "tumble" out from our body.

 

But' date=' how does the decrease/increase in bonds explain for their state of stability and instability. That's what i wanna know

 

Thanks in advance.[/quote']

 

 

saturated fats are supposedly bad because that's what they find when they scrape the plaque out of a dead man's heart, but eating saturated fat hasn't been proven to lead to clogged arteries

 

normally natural unsaturated fats (omega 3, 6, etc) have cis double bonds

now, when natural unsaturated fats are artificially partially hydrogentated (with hydrogen, of course, heat and a catalyst), not all the double bonds are hydrogenated but the heat and catalyst can turn some of the cis bonds to trans

 

trans double bonds in fats are bad because they aren't as straight a chain as cis fats, because if the fats are incorporated into your cell membranes, which a lot of them are, the trans fat with the kink in it makes for a weak spot in the cell membrane

What properties would be different (other than the structure itself) of let's say, propan-1-ol and propan-2-ol? 

the dipole moment

The only way we have of making them is by synthesis....

 

http://www.chem.wisc.edu/~newtrad/CurrRef/BDGTopic/BDGtext/BDGBucky.html

 

Only 1' date=' 2, 10 and 11 are really applicable though.[/quote']

 

 

well, "synthesis" means "making" whether it was artificial or natural

and bucky balls of all sorts are found naturally in soots and cokes

so are nanotubes and other filamentous carbon

 

the easiest way to make buckyballs is by arc discharge between two carbon electrodes in low pressure inert gas, you could do it at home with a bell jar, a tank of helium, a couple of carbon electrodes and an arc welder.

 

 

oh, forgot to mention that if you wanted to purify it you'd need something like a soxhlet extractor and some benzene or toluene

it's the angular momentum left over after orbital angular momentum is accounted for, it looked like spinning so they called it spin

Well can some kind person explain how sub orbitals hybridise and the explaination behind it, and how the suborbitals take on new shapes to allow for this.

you could do it with Group Theory and do the old Linear Combination of Atomic Orbitals (LCAO) approach, this will give you at least the geometric description of the hybridization, or its symmetry at least

hybridization IS possible for all orbitals, in theory, and hybridization is really the localized part of Huckel theory, which is more commonly used for delocalized orbitals

e- + e+ -> 2gamma' date='

so i assume that they have atleast a volume, plus the point of collisions tells me they atleast have mass[/quote']

 

my basic chem and physics book tell me they have mass too

Orbitals don't have a spherial shape' date=' which is sort of to do with particle wave duality (there sort of lobular)

 

Protons do emit an field, they're POSITIVE and electrons are NEGATIVE.[/quote']

 

s orbitals ARE spherical

the rest are lobular

How do I determine concentration in .0008496 mols of AgCl4?

what the hell is AgCl4??

I've never heard of silver in +4 oxidation state

yeah, calcium chloride has limited solubilty in water and is probably crashing out on the surface of your pool

I don't know where you are but most chem labs in universities and companies here in the US have at the very least vent hoods and waste disposal containers to separate all the different kinds of waste, then the waste management team come and picks them up

What THEY do with it is expensive and elaborate.

I can't believe you are doing research on environmentally toxic materials without an adequate waste disposal system in place FIRST.

Get the waste disposal system in place BEFORE you do any research. I know this may sound impractical, but so is polluting your backyard. If you were here in the US, you'd be shut down quick.

my chemistry is a bit laggy' date=' but let me try.

 

1) Is Covalent compound is compound? Yes

2) Is ion a compound or element? Element

3) If ion is a not a compound, then why is polyatomic ion a covalent compound? Poly - more then 1 element, in this case it's is polar (charged) and share electrons[/quote']

 

 

 

well, a "..." compound would be a compound, wouldn't it?

 

and an ion is an ion, an element is an element. maybe you could call a monatomic ion an "element" but not really, since an element would be a pure neutral substance, the whole thing, a sample of it, if you will.

 

The word "compound" would refer to the whole thing, the neutral substance. So I wouldn't go calling an ion, polyatomic or not, a "compound" but really this is just semantics and the only people who would care are anal professors and maybe librarians.

are you saying that the total concentration of the two ions is 0.1M or are each ion at 0.1M??

If the two add up to 0.1M and you are trying to figure out which fraction is I- and which is Cl-?

If you know what the cation is, this is easy. If it were say, NaCl and NaI dissolved up to where the total concentration was 0.1M then you just accurately measure a volume of the solution (assuming that is is precisely 0.1M) and evaporate it, and weigh the remaining salt. If it was all NaCl, then it will have a certain predictable mass. If it were all NaI then it would have more mass. Your mass will be somewhere in between.

With a little simple math you can find the molar percentages of Cl- and I-.

oh' date=' but wait, there's more!

 

actually, H+ is hydronium.

 

but back to the point, yes, there are other group 1 cations. here's the good ol' biochem connection: in the axon of neurons, there is a sort of Na K "pump". as different nerve impulses occur, Na+ ions and K- ions move across a barrier (forgot the name, it's been a year since i took a molecular bio class). i've never heard of another group 1 anion aside from K- and H-[/quote']

 

BOO!

The Na/K pump is replacing Na+ with K+

ain't no way you'll have K- in water. In water all K or Na is +

primary structure is the sequence of amino acids

secondary structures are formed when the amino acid chain curls up into helixes or sheets ,most commonly

tertiary structure is pretty much the overall shape that the protein folds itslef into

then quaternary structure would be if there are different subunits that assemble into a larger structure

protein purification is an art, it's not so easy for most proteins

here is a nice description:

http://www.biotech.vt.edu/classes/bion_4784/9-ProteinPurification/ProteinPurification.html

different spectroscopic methods you could use on proteins are things like IR, and NMR or proteins is really big an hot right now, mass spec, while not really "spectroscopic" it's more "spectrometric" is very useful, especially MALDI-TOF MS

the only way to predict the products in a reaction is to work from what you know, but just looking at a couple of chemical formulas, you can't honestly predict the reactants, a priori. You have to already know something about the reaction, or a reaction that is similar to it.

Say, when learning organic chemistry, you are usually taught about classes of reactions and what they do, and then they give you a test that asks you to predict the products based on what you learned in class. But if you were to be given the chemical formulas for some reactants and be asked to predict the outcome of the reaction with no prior knowledge then that would be very difficult.

Nowadays, though, there are computational methods that can simulate all the wavefunctions, etc. involved and calculate the relative energies of certain molecular configurations and whatnot, and that can be a way to predict the product of a reaction, but doing that on anything but very simple systems becomes quite a task.

Then after all that, it's usually an approximation so you still can't be 100% sure.

Neither a classical wave description or a classical particle description of light is fully adequate to describe light.

yes, exactly

Quote from kjitta: "I prefere to think of EM radiation as a stream of photons whos statistical behavoir assimilate wave properties."

i'm too lazy to go looking up papers right now but there have been experiments where one photon, or was it one electron, showed an interference pattern in a slit set-up

Basically my disenchantment with the Theory of Evolution is in the many holes that it has but mainly one big one. The Second law of Thermodynamics precludes it. And yes I do know about the whole argument that the earth is an open system with the influx of energy from the sun and all that. But even if the earth is a open system there would still need to be an energy conservation mechanism to harness the energy for life to begin. Anyways if I need to go into that more in depth I will.

Please do go into more detail.

There are energy conversion mechanisms all over the place called molecules. They get excitied by radiant energy (light) and change and do all the cool things they do. Given time, certain reactions might couple so that a thermodynamically unfavored reaction is powered by a thermodynamically favored one. This is mostly how life works to build complexity and there never needs to be any violation of any thermodynamic laws.

Anyways this new theory would have to obey the second law of thermodynamics first and foremost but also fit in with the fossil record and genetics.

How is there a fossil record with no evolution? Why do we see evolution happening around us all the time, albeit at a slow pace for more complex organisms, but at a faster rate for simple ones, ie microbes?

oh, btw, creationism is not a theory. it's not even a hypothesis. a hypothesis has to be testable, once its passed a test or two, it becomes a theory. evolutionary theory has passed quite a few tests, and since most of modern biology wouldn't work without it, it's a pretty indispensible theory