big314mp

This effect sort of exists. Example: Polymyxin B attacks cell membranes. However, it is only active against gram-negative bacteria. Gram-positive bacteria have cell walls that are too thick for the Polymyxin B to get to the membrane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymyxin_b

Your best bet would be to plug in some theoretical numbers, and see what sort of wavelengths you will get.

That's an interesting point. I'd forgotten that all of the functions that have an infinite series of derivatives. So I guess the math end of the question has been answered. On the physics end of it, is there any way to tell which it is? Is there even any way to describe the expansion of the universe as a mathematical function?

For the sake of simplicity, it is easiest to consider only the outer eight electrons. I think your confusion on this stems partially from the fact that there is more than one way to account for electrons. The "+" that you see is what is known as a "formal charge". A formal charge is the number of electrons an atom usually has minus the number of electrons that the atom actually has. Consider the nitrogen. As Captain posted, nitrogen usually has 5 electrons (considering only the outer shell). When accounting for how many electrons the atom has, you split each bond in half. One electron in the bond goes to one atom, the other to the other atom. So the nitrogen has 4 bonds, and therefore 4 electrons assigned to it. Therefore, 5 - 4 = +1, which is the formal charge of the nitrogen. The octet rule is another way to account for electrons. The nitrogen has 4 bonds. In this method of counting, both electrons count for both atoms in the bond. Therefore, the nitrogen has 4 bonds, which comes out to eight electrons. The octet rule is satisfied. The octet rule is used for drawing structures. Formal charges help identify sites of positive and negative charge in the atom.

Replace some of those magnets with electromagnets, and you will have an electric motor. So you are sort of on the right track. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, however. If you want the rotor to spin, you are going to have to apply energy to it.

Check you denominator. Are you doing: [H3AsO4] - [H+] Because, once the H3AsO4 deprotonates, it no longer counts as a reactant. So however much deprotonates needs to be subtracted from the initial concentration of H3AsO4.

Could it just be that the alcohol slowly vaporized out, leaving behind the extracted oils and sugars from the cinnamon?

You are going to be calculating K(a1), or the K of the first proton. So your reaction is: H3AsO4 -> H+ + H2AsO4- Now if you have a reaction of: A + B -> C + D Then K = ([A]*)/([C]*[D]) Where [A] = concentration of A

Are you already on paracetamol and/or ibuprofen? Usually they are included in the codeine, but if they aren't, then you can add them as there is a synergistic effect. You also take up binge drinking

I checked my geometry, and did eventually find my mistake. So I suppose what this boils down to, is if you take the function that describes the expansion of the universe, and take the derivative enough times, do you get a linear function?

Maybe my geometry is off here, but I thought the "universe" would expand at a rate of 4pi(r^2), and thereby accelerate as r gets larger. EDIT: Actually, what needs to be calculated is arc length (for the distance between points), so I'm going to chew on that one for a while. As to the omega constant, what is that used for? I'm guessing that it is some constant that defines the expansion of the universe. From what I'm reading, though, it looks like a mathematics constant, rather than a cosmological one.

If you look up info on recreational boating (specifically the props used), that will give you a very rudimentary start, that is quite dummy proof.

How about a shovel that picks up some dirt (an auger would work also), and then the dirt is gently heated, and the gasses that are produced are analyzed by some...device.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the universe is a balloon; the surface of the balloon being our universe. Now if the radius of the balloon increases at a constant rate, then the surface area of the balloon will increase at an accelerating rate. Beings on the surface of the balloon would see their universe as having an accelerating expansion. So my question is, could the growth of the universe be constant in some higher dimension that we can't observe? In other words, we can see the balloon as expanding by a linear increase of r, but the 2d beings on the surface of the balloon can't.

The book "Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland" by George Gamow is about stuff like this. I'd encourage you to get it from the library, as it is a good read. I think the first chapter is exactly the situation you posed.

I'd check what exactly is in the codeine pills. Often times paracetamol is added to them, so just make sure you watch how much of that you take. As to the codeine itself, if it works, run with it. That dose is safe.

Well, from what I gather, the author had specific properties that needed to be met, and sodium fulfilled them the best.

I guess I should've looked at the Table of reduction potentials in the first place. I figured that the Activity Series was based on that.

Why not use a home built battery and molten NaCl? A proper furnace should melt NaCl, and surely your civilization can figure out how to build a battery of sorts.

I was thinking Warren Buffet would beat the federal government. Especially since he is giving away money that he actually has And does the bailout count as charity?

Some of the kids here will skip school and hang out at the library. Why? Because its there. Not to read books. But because it just happens to be there. Sort of like a mall.

When you were talking about series/paralleling stuff I assumed you were talking about the batteries. Series batteries give more voltage/current. Parallel batteries give more capacity.

This is hardly the dominant reason for people to go to the mall.

I'm not sure how well this will work with conductive materials, such as metal powders. I'm thinking that if you used some sort of very fine dust it might work, but I have a feeling that if you pack it loose enough to be blown out with a flyback, then it'll just fall out of the tube on its own.

So when looking on that activity series, is Aluminum listed lower because it takes some extra effort to get through the oxide layer (i.e. acid)? This series says that aluminum will react with hot water, so is that because of disruption of the oxide layer as well? http://www.chem.vt.edu/RVGS/ACT/notes/activity_series.html