Jump to content

Elite Engineer

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    640
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Nice

1 Follower

About Elite Engineer

  • Rank
    Molecule
  • Birthday 11/05/1992

Profile Information

  • Location
    NY
  • Interests
    philosophy, music, science.
  • College Major/Degree
    BS in Biotechnology,
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Chemistry
  • Biography
    should have gone to school for chemistry... :/
  • Occupation
    Protein Chemist

Recent Profile Visitors

14890 profile views
  1. Thank you, that's much more clearer! I figured it wasn't pseudoscience, but also wasn't wholly grounded. I didn't want to take that stance until I ran it by a few people. I believe the quote is originally from a UVA newspaper, and was then used in that blog. https://news.virginia.edu/content/biomedical-engineering-study-demonstrates-healing-value-magnets
  2. "With a five-year, $875,000 grant from the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine." Does that mean he may have done this study just to appease his funders? Is this a common occurence in academic research?
  3. Granted this study is from 2008, and there were no further investigations, I've received some flak from my pseudoscience friends for not giving credit to the findings. The story explains how bioengineer, Tom Skalak at University of VA may have discovered how magnets may reduce swelling. At first I immediately assumed quackery, but through reading the study I can't explain any mechanisms against the findings or find anything inherently wrong with the study. I can't see magnet therapy being a serious medical treatment. It's concerning, especially for pro-magnet therapy quacks using this to solidify their position. Study: https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.01133.2006 Study summary: https://news.virginia.edu/content/biomedical-engineering-study-demonstrates-healing-value-magnets ~ee
  4. Oh right. I was thinking of saponification. Thanks for the clarification
  5. If we were theoretically able to carry out nuclear fusion, such as encasing a star in a reactor, how/what would be the type of energy we would be pulling from it to power the grid? I would it would be heat energy like in nuclear fission? I hesitate to believe this because isn't the energy from fusion way too high to use? Would it be akin to powering a 40 watt light bulb with 1,000 watt power source? ~ee
  6. Why's that? What other kind of reaction would you see with a fatty acid, ethanol, and hydroxide?
  7. My wife is trying to stiffen felt using a gelatinous collagen mixture for hat making (millinery). In the procedure, she makes a collagen gel (using lyophilized collagen and and hot water) and then lets it solidify in the fridge. After 24 hours of cooling and solidification, she heats the gel so it becomes liquid, and then applies the collagen solution to the felt. The felt is then molded into a shape, dries, and retains it's shape as the collagen solution dries. We're working on different concentrations to optimize rigidity on the fabric. My question: Would enzymatically breaking down the collagen (i.e. meat tenderizer) allow us to use less gel per area of fabric? I read some protocols on researchgate regarding hydrogel and people mentioned that breaking down the collagen resulted in stiffer gels. My thought is, if we breakdown the collagen it would result in increased rigidity while requiring less gel? I ask because when we apply too much collagen solution to the fabric, it leaves a white-ish sheen. It's similar to placing a drop on glue on the material and then wiping it off, leaving a "spread out-appearance" of white residue. Your thoughts? ~ee
  8. Hey thanks for the greeting! I guess I just got caught up in the jumbled inner workings of the "9-5". When I was in college I had all the time in the world to scroll, read and post on here. I'm glad to be back though. As far as an update, I'm sad to admit I left my research job for a higher pay (and benefits) non-science job. I could you use this place now more than ever.
  9. Is the cost of producing biofuel (or really any alternative fuel in this argument) really that much greater than fracking/digging up fossil fuel? Correct me if I'm wrong but the big sink in in alternative fuels is the production of the fuel. You don't get more energy out of it then it costs to make it. So you're breaking even or making a little profit.Whereas with fossil fuels, the "assembly" of crude oil molecules has already been done for us by the plant and animal decomposition under heat & pressure for millions of years. All we have to do is frack/dig it up. Looking at the size and operation of oil rigs and fracking companies, you'd think it would cost much more to obtain the crude oil. Your thoughts on this? ~EE
  10. Hey all, it's been a while since I was on here. Thinking I'll start posting again. ~ee
  11. Using it mostly for smell for the house, I really enjoy the smell of mint. No I haven' done a small scale trial run. I only have 1500 ml of 40% etoh to which I'm not sure if I should distill or not. I don't really want to distill a small amount just for a small scale experiment
  12. I'm not sure which would be better. I ask because I'm worried using 90% etoh will have an overpowering smell on the final solution. Also, 40% may not be as effective as 90%. Thoughts? ~ee
  13. So, if you build a latrine...just a hole in the ground and add excrement to it, it smells, harbors pathogens and doesnt really get converted into anything. Compost toilets on the other hand, have little to no smell, has no pathogenic bacteria and the waste is converted into compost. I was wondering if compost toilets work as opposed to latrines because when you add extra carbon materials (i.e sawdust) and oxygen it allows for growth of thermophilic bacteria. Thermophilic bacteria raise the temp of the waste and kill off the pathogenic species. So in this case, are compost toilets akin to where the desired bacteria are selected via conditions of the environment? ~EE
  14. Sorry, i meant uranium-235, and I found my answer: The fission of one atom of uranium-235 generates 202.5 MeV = 3.24E−11 J, which translates to 83.14 TJ/kg. This is around 2.5 million times more than the energy released from burning coal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235#Fission
  15. I know 1 atom of uranium-238 isn't critical mass, but theoretically, if you could split 1 atom of uranium-238, how much energy would be produced? ~ee
×
×
  • 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.