Jump to content

Mr_Mediocre

Senior Members
  • Posts

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Australia
  • Interests
    Classical music, chemistry, physics
  • College Major/Degree
    PhD in Chemistry
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Chemistry
  • Biography
    nothing important comes to mind :)...I am a little mediocre though
  • Occupation
    Just finished PhD so nothing right now :)

Retained

  • Quark

Mr_Mediocre's Achievements

Quark

Quark (2/13)

10

Reputation

  1. sorry forgot rest of the reference. Jonathan C. Wasse, Shusaku Hayama, Sotiris Masmanidis, Sarah L. Stebbings, and Neal T. Skipper, Journal of chemical physics, 2003, (118), 7486 http://content.aip.org/JCPSA6/v118/i16/7486_1.html
  2. Does the book say how the Li- was formed initially? My source: Jonathan C. Wasse, Shusaku Hayama, Sotiris Masmanidis, Sarah L. Stebbings, and Neal T. Skipper, Journal of Chemical Physics, The microscopic structures of lithium–ammonia and sodium–ammonia solutions have been measured by the technique of isotopic labeling in neutron diffraction, at and above the metal–nonmetal transition that occurs in the range 2–8 mole percent metal (MPM). Substitution of *Li by 6Li has been used to obtain the lithium-centered first-order difference function at 8 MPM and 230 K. This function shows us that the lithium cations are strongly solvated by 4 ammonia molecules. Substitution of *N by 15N has then been used to probe the nitrogen-centered structure in lithium–ammonia solutions at 4, 8, and 12.5 MPM and sodium–ammonia at 12.5 MPM. These functions give us new insight into both the disruption of hydrogen bonding as alkali metal is added to ammonia, and the solvation structure of the sodium cations. The former manifests itself through a progressive loss of the hydrogen-bonded N–D peak at ~2.4 Å. The latter appears as an N–Na shoulder at ~2.5 Å, and shows us that sodium is solvated by ~5.5 ammonia molecules. In contrast to previous data for saturated (~21 MPM) metal–ammonia solutions, we do not observe intermediate-range ordering of the solvated cations at the concentrations studied here
  3. H2SO4 <===> H+ + HSO4- <===> 2H+ SO4(2-) pKa1 pKa2 1.92 not sure ~ 4-6 I think Production of H2SO4 from what? Sorry, I don't have any references for you. CRC handbook should have the data.
  4. Sayonara, the bible gives the earth about 4000 - 6000 years of existence. Using radioisotopes we get (scientifically) an earth age of 4 billion-odd yrs. This is a pretty fundamental point to differ on. The fossil record contains no modern day humans. If humans were around from day dot then shouldn't our fossils be peppered throughout? Especially if there was a big flood? No real mention of, say, neanderthals or cro magnons in the bible, but we seem to have stumbled on a few of them...the fossil record is alot more than a statement that something once living since died. There is an order and a progression to it, backed up with other analyses...air bubbles, MORE radio dating, etc. This would contradict the bible's view of MANY event leading to where we are today. If anything, you would have to say that for someone who wants to be loved and worshipped, sacrificed to etc, biblical God (if he exists), in crafting the earth, has done a fine job of tryng to convince us he doesn't exist. Would that make him a 'sadistic twat' too?
  5. Do they go by any other names?
  6. NH3 doesn't reduce neutral group one metals, it oxidizes them. It is also not going to be able to donate an electron to reduce a group 1 or group 2 cation to its native metal state. Even if it did, as soon as the neutral metal was produced it would react with the water in your ammonia solution. You'd need to do electrolysis of the salt, and in a non-protic solvent like dry acetonitrile or DMF. If you DO go down this path, be very careful and read up very well. Best of luck
  7. Jakiri, science precludes a few things through the laws of thermodynamics. The fact that it precludes very little only adds to its charm as a flexible philosophy, as opposed to most religious philosophies which tend to be pretty immovable on many points. Back to your point, randomc, one recruits young, new, impressionable scientists by sucking them in with the same crappy advertising campaigns that large corporations and politicians do. Think of the minds that would otherwise have been completely wasted as lawyers! Two birds with one stone! Use buzzwords like 'environmental', 'forensic', 'solar', 'extraterrestrial' (not aliens), 'laser', 'nano-', 'artificial life' and so on. Get them in early and the rest is up to the uni to keep em interested. The kiddies WANT to be told what is cool, they NEEEEED to be told what is cool
  8. Sayonara, honestly, there was no implcation that Einstein was famous for his religious views. I've never thought this and wouldn't say it. Maybe I could have worded it a little better. In answer to your other questions: - What has evolution got to do with anything (in the sense of Christianity vs science)? Evolution, as it is understood to science, directly contradicts the bible. This is one of the MAIN sticking points in the Christianity vs science debate. - It is not representative of "science" It is part of a very solid branch of science. I can't think of any SINGLE thoery/hypothesis that could be regarded as `representative of science'. It is certainly "a" representative of science. - It does not contradict Christian scripture Yes it does. The very first page (among many others). What about the fossil record? - Any godly being worth its salt would have built it in to life anyway, unless it was a sadistic twat Not entirely sure what you're getting at here.
  9. I think it is the other way around...group two (alkaline, not alkali) metals (not 2+ cations, but the metals) are strong reducing agents as they easily give away the two outershell s electrons. They can't do any further reducing once they are fully oxidized to 2+, which they will be if they are in solution. I'm guessing you are just working with household chemicals in your endeavours? Where are you getting you sulfate from?
  10. If you use a good excess of vinegar then boil it all down you might get calcium acetate monohydrate precipitating upon cooling. You'll have to muck around with it a little I think, but that's half the fun
  11. There are some classics in here! Been cracking up... Why is abbreviation such a long word? Why is phonetically not spelt so? What colour does a smurf turn when you throttle him? This one's a little crude but pretty funny. An enebriated man is thrown in the lockup overnight for being drunk and disorderly. He had just been tossed to the floor, the officer locked the door and walked away. The man looks up to see his cellmate, a seven-foot tall monster of a man, covered in tattoos, beard and BO, towering over him. "In here, we play this little game." said the goliath. "It's called 'mummies and daddies'. So who do you wanna be? The mummy? or the Daddy?". The drunkard, frightened out of his mind and not wishing to be either, replied "ahhh...look mate, I'm just really tired and need some sleep. Thanks anyway." The goliath simply repeated his initial question with more force "Who's ya gonna be? Mummy? or Daddy!?". The drunk is truly packing it now and realises that there is no way out of the situation. His suddenly much clearer brain arrived upon the lesser of the two evils and finally he announced "Well, if I have no choice, then...ahhh...I suppose...*damn* I'll have to be the Daddy." with which he started to psyche himself up for the coming ordeal. The Goliath smiled at his choice and said: "Good. Now come over here and suck mummy's d**k" hehehe....aww c'mon, there were worse ones earlier on....
  12. ....and I too long for the return of The Goodies....
  13. i'll have to go: 1. saving private ryan 2. pulp fiction 3. dirty rotten scoundrels 4. starship troopers 5. matrix (first movie) 6. alien series 7. life of brian 8. forrest gump 9. caveman (with ringo starr) 10. dusk till dawn (first half of first movie)
  14. ooo...didn't know this was here. Hi, I'm mediocre. I just handed in my thesis (PhD in chemistry) and stumbled on this forum while desperately looking for stuff to do. Looks like some cool threads are to be found here. I like chemistry (obviously), space, music (classical or satriani/malmsteen), sci fi, science in general and (if I'm avoiding work) lots of mindless television. Pleased to meet you all MM
  15. I think we could still classify a scientifically understood god as a "god". http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=God I have faith in science. There are things that couldn't be imagined 50 yrs ago that are everyday hum-drum stuff for us now. We never really know what is around the corner. That's the coolest part about it. I haven't read any Dawkins even though there is a book on the shelf (the blind watchmaker). I might have a look.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.