Elite Engineer

Specifically, the aromatics used as essential oils...probably doesnt narrow it, but hopefully reduces the broad outlook

I've heard though, that muscle cells are literally filled to the brim w/ creatine, and taking the supplements does nothing. Infact you just pee it out.

This was a start...leads to many other more specific pathways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mevalonate_pathway

Or rather what is the biological pathway of the aromatic compounds, and where or what organelle? Just curious. Still looking on google LOL major fail on my part...I just needed to change my search keywords.

So I figure increasing cellular PCr levels, say 10x would be very difficult to carry out and manage...i.e. synthesizing extra enzymes, getting extra nutrients etc. But if it were possible, would the individual be stronger, or just have ridiculous endurance? ~EE

I believe the Thermus aquaticus bacteria used in PCR are placed under a patent..or something similar.

I can see a "19 yr old visionary" as a nice sell to start a company, and maybe interest investors. But what investor is going to get behind such a "company". Theranos in it's early days had no product or even prototype. Even at this point, I could excuse a few million dollars in investing, but the company is worth $9 Billion dollars...and Holmes alone is worth a billion..with no physical product or even close to promising results. The NYU student who made Medi-Gel isn't even worth a fraction of a fraction of Holmes net worth, and he made a product that is actually being used and works. I've read that her parents had congressional connections, and that Henry Kissinger is on her board of directors.

Theranos started was started in 2003, by a 19 yr old Standford freshman named Elizabeth Holmes. Apparently, using research from her college professor, she claimed to have an idea or theory of revolutionizing blood tests. Now in 2016, she's a billionaire, with a company that has virtually no results and no product. My question is, how did this company ever get off the ground, by a 19 yr old college freshman, that had no answers, no solution and no product? I know right now, the company is going through some major scrutiny, and maybe fraud. ~ee

I thought the same thing. But, she was able to use several aspects of the force right off the bat. I'm guessing either Disney and JJ Abrahams messed this up, or she is the STRONGEST Jedi ever. But lets be, if she was the STRONGEST Jedi, I think we'd see some of it when she was a scraper. Maybe it would manifest randomly and she didn't know what was going on. Ya, i guess the storm troopers are pretty bad. I figured they'd be more menacing in this film than the others..but it seems they just wanted to make them look like blundering fools, just like in episodes 1-6. That's what my friend told me. I see that Kylo Ren is just a inflated brat, but the creators could have gone a number of different routes. They could have made Kylo Ren a bit more intimidating, and still let Rey live in a battle against him.

Ok, so I saw the new Star Wars the other day, and I'm so disappointed. The movie had SO MUCH potential to be great. I would think after episodes 1,2, and 3, they would carefully tailor this film to be not only better. Instead, it seems like they wrote the whole movie over a single weekend, and didn't take a step back to think about it. By far the biggest disappointment was the characters, their abilities and personality: Fin- A storm trooper deserter who, in summary, appeared as a cowardice, whiny, unskilled boy. We barely see Fin fight, and when he does, he's a scared nanny. He's been trained as a storm trooper his whole life, and he lacks fighting tactics. Not only that, but he's the kind of character you really can't get behind and "like". In contrast, look at Han Solo in A New Hope. When he shot down Greedo, and walked out of the bar like nothing happened, you were instantly into Han, and could get behind him. Rey- I didn't find anything wrong with this character's personality, but her immediate Jedi skill when fighting Kylo Ren, was so cliche and more reminiscent of episodes 1-3. Kylo Ren- This character was probably the most disappointing. He's like what, 20 yrs old? He's a brat, who can't hold a fight against an untrained Jedi (Rey). His "force" power is easily compromised by Kylo Ren... What kind of dark side sith is he? When he took off his helmet, he had no scars or mark of experience.

Is this necessarily a good thing? Well, there's family history of heart disease on my mom's side. My dad had a heart attack in 2008 at 52, but he's doing better now. It flat out sucks. I'm in great shape and I eat well. I feel like it's all gone to waste.

So, I decided to get deeper..ALOT deeper. I found one study for 2002, that said that PON1 AB and BB polymorphisms (or Glutamine-Arginine and Arginine-Arginine) only contribute to coronary artery disease in cases of high HDL cholesterol. This seems really paradoxical and troubling.It's generally agreed that having high HDL cholesterol is a good preventive for heart disease. However, if you have the PON1 AB or BB polymorphism,having high HDL increases your chances of heart disease. I'm not feeling very good from this Link to the paper (abstract only): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12204800 ~EE

So, in class we gathered our own buccal cells, and extracted the DNA to see potential polymorphisms in our PON1 gene sequence. As it turns out, I am heterozygous for the A-B allele. There has been some research relating both the AB and BB polymorphism to increased risk of atherosclerosis. I know there are plenty of other elements to factor in..but has anyone heard of current research or studies about this? I've checked a bit and only found 2 papers, both before 1998. ~EE

The Pka is a measure of the acid dissociation constant, meaning: The higher the value, the more tightly the protons are held, and the lower the value, the less tightly they're held. In other words, High Pka = weak acid (Amien group); Low Pka = strong acid (HCl). 9.5 is kinda low, but not very strong. So Im guessing since it's not a very strong acid, protons would more likely bond to the NH3 thna not. Relative to chemical equilibrium, the reaction could be balancing out due to high concentration on the right side of the equation, I guess... ~EE

I'm your guy! I've been setting up a home lab for the last 2 years. I've synthesized alot of cool stuff..most of it is hard to get both high purity and large concentration. Most household chemical are not going to be pure enough to use in a reaction. However there are a couple of things you can use: Lye- Sodium Hydroxide Rubbing Alcohol- Ethanol or isopropanol Sodium Chloride/ Potassium Chloride Water-Break ice packs, inside is a packet of ammonium nitrate Thats all I can think of now. ________________________________________________________ For a quick practice reaction, try and make potassium nitrate. There's 100's of videos on youtube on all different kinds of synthesis' and lab set ups. Good luck ~EE

"Also note that if everyone takes STEM, by definition STEM would be over saturated" -CharonY All the pople who would take STEM, wouldn't finish it, thats my point. If you have 1000 students take a STEM major, MAYBE 50% would actually follow through and finish it, b/c its naturally difficult and weeds out people not fit for it. If you have a 1000 students take a BA, I'm willing to bet 80% or more will finish it, because it's much easier. This leads to overstauration..people taking the easy way out. You have students who want a BA, and then you have the students who couldn't hack it in STEM and use a BA as a back up. Both groups added together saturate this market. [bA ---> STEM] < [sTEM ---> BA] Yes I think STEM could maybe become overstaturated, but not to the extent as the BA population is. Also, with population growth STEM has a higher demand than BA. People need doctors and engineers more than they do teachers and journalists.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/college-inc/2010/04/survey_college_applicants_want.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/college-is-not-for-learni_n_558200.html Both links cover surveys college students took explaining why they're going to college..$ An engineer, doctor, lab tech, architect, pharmacist, etc all have a clear connection to applicablity in the real world. Aside from "critical thinking", what applicable skills does a history major have in the real world? An engineer can design an engine or build a bridge. Yes, there are history majors who find jobs, maybe at banks or as managers. But as a whole, BA's dont have much applicable power, especially since more college grads are getting BA's.

I'm thinking the title of my post was not very accurate. I'll explain 3 summaries that will explain it in clearer detail: 1.) Students are told to go to college, especially for STEM. The ones that can't handle STEM go into an overstaurated BA. 2.) Some students intend to go to college for an oversaturated BA. 3.) These colleges are more than happy to thrust both these groups into massive debt, and give them fluffed satistics on how they'll get a job right out of college. Yes there are STEM graduates who have trouble finding a job, but in general they have a much lower level fo unemployment. What I'm asking is colleges resolve these issues: 1.) Colleges know students are disillusioned, and brainwashed and see schooling as a fast track for a financial career, not better their minds.They need to be honest with them, tell them that getting an oversaturated degree may not be the best track to a good life, especially if they're taking out massive loans to pay for it. Tell them which degree's are most likley to land them a job. 2.)Tell students college isn't the only way to have a career. If school were cheaper, I'd have no problem with people going to college and getting a piece of paper that doesn't do anything...no real big consequence. The line has to be drawn when people go to school for a useless piece of paper and leave with crippling debt...the system has to be changed. Were these statistics based on Georgetown University grads, or nationwide college graduates? Georgetown Uni. is a pretty presitigous college, so I'd expect BA's from there have a better employment status, just like how BA's from Harvard are going to have a very different employment rate than BA's from a smaller local college no one has heard of. Yes, however a STEM graduate is far more attractive than a BA graduate. STEM requires hard critical thinking, problem solving, creative thinking. A BA requires you know when Rome fell. A BA just shows you can commit to something, STEM shows you can problem solve. In fact you're right that many STEM don't end up in their field, because they get a wider range of job offers. My brother's friend got a BS in electrical engineering from Syracuse U and now he's a data analyst for a mutual fund. If this were the case, this conversation would have never happened.

I can understand if college were cheap or free,or if i were a trust-fund baby... then why not better yourself, right?. However, times are changing. Students attend college these days because they're told that college is the only way to a good paying career. This is relayed to them by their teachers, parents, the media and even politicians..including the president. STEM is the most emphasized. In high school, everyone was telling me if I want a good life, I have to be either an engineer, or a doctor. Now, these kids go to college with one thing in mind, money. They immediately start predicting their future salary and the new car they'll have..cause they're going to be an ENGINEER or a DOCTOR. They dont think about "oh, my I'm really bettering myself intellectually". Of course, not everyone is meant for the college life, and once these kids get into the STEM programs, they realize they've bitten off more than they can chew. Now that have to make a decision: Change your major (and hey, the media and my teachers say college = a good career), get a vocational job (well that's below me). Naturally, the kids pick the former and usually pick an easy major...resulting in massive attendance in BA (LIBERAL ARTS ) majors like history, sociology, psychology etc. Then they push through 4 years of college, and accumulate...$40k-70k of debt, with a useless, over-inflated BA that 70% of their graduating class has. I forgot to mention, my friend wanted a career in the STEM field. After his first chemistry class, he immediately changed to an easier degree..OR.Of course in his mind, and many other students..as long as they GET A DEGREE...they'll get a job. So, let's be realistic here.This isn't Athens. People aren't going to college because of some sudden renaissance in seeking a well-rounded mind. It's money, period. Colleges have detailed statistics of who their students are, and why they are there. Of course, I forget that some of members here are PhD's with university teaching positions. Gotta increase that 6-figure salary..better keep the flow of ill-informed, naive kids going. Charles Murray explains it here: "Who needs college anyway"

University at Buffalo Mission statement: "We view the tripartite mission of the public university – research, education, and public service – not as separate or discrete actions, but as interdependent activities continually informing and enriching each other. As a public research university, we value our institutional responsibility to bring the benefits of our research, scholarship, and teaching excellence to the members of our local and world communities in ways that enhance both our understanding of our world and the quality of life for all people". For psychology majors, provided by UB: "Salaries range greatly from one occupation, position, and work setting to another. According to the 2013 NACE national salary survey for bachelor's degree graduates in psychology, the average salary was $37,400, with salaries ranging from $30,200 to $44,000." -Why include career salaries if the mission statement of the university is to "...enhance both our understanding of our world and the quality of life for all people."

An investment in applicable skills, i.e. a degree is meant to furnish a career..so yes.

If you want to learn, buy a book. If you want to earn, get a degree.

My friend recently finished college in the spring with a degree in....drum roll...you'll never guess..."Outdoor Recreation". Seriously, what career does this kind of major provide? It's more of a bad joke than a bad major. Sadly, this is just one of the many majors that will land college grads into crippling debt. I believe colleges have an obligation to discontinue a service that does not benefit the whole of it's students. Lets be honest, no high school graduate goes to college to "enhance their minds and enrich their thinking". We all go to college to get a higher paying career, period. A bachelors degree alone should be sufficient to get a gaduate a decent job in the market than can start a professional career. How can you argue that a BA/BS in outdoor recreation, sports studies, creative writing, art history and eventually history, pyschology, and even english can lead to a sustainable, professional career for a college grad. College is a vehicle to make yourself more marketable. If the college cannot honestly do that with these courses, shouldn't they discontinue these degrees? ~ee

I think the OP was asking a genuine question. How else was he supposed to phrase it?

thinking maybe, if the nitrogen in triethylamine was protonated, it would be + charged, facilitating a chloride atom from FeCl3 to bind to the + nitrogen...I guess that's a start..