chadn

In plants there are examples of male sterility that due to genes in the mitochondria. This is typically referred to as Cytoplasmic Male Sterility and there are nuclear based genes or alleles that can rescue this. The exact genes and mechanisms involved is poorly understood.

Could someone please give me the chemical chomisiation of sugar(not sucrose)

There are numerous "sugars." Sucrose being typical table sugar and so what most people think of when you say sugar.

All your sugars are made up of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen. Beyond that you have to be a lot more specific as the exact chemical formula and stereochemistry of all the various sugars is huge.

I will give you this. D-Glucose is the most common monosaccharide on Earth. Its formula is C6O6H12.

Heres the structure and stereochemistry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose

If thats not what your looking for than you have to be a lot more specific as there are too many sugars to go into detail about.

I understand that perfectly. But its hard to give an answer to such a vague question. Personally I think he/she is probably more interested in what goes on at the cellular level. If he/she is indeed interested in what goes on at the molecular level they should be more specific....such as maybe what type of signalling goes on to bring about erections.

Biochemically it consists of much the same stuff as the rest of your body. Perhaps your more interested in physiology and cell types?

B-DNA doesnt need to denature to form A-DNA.

The A-form of DNA exists under conditions of dehydration or high-salt concentrations.

The Z-form I believe exists only in the lab. In addition to these three there are also C, D, E, and P forms. All of these....if I am correct are found under laboratory conditions, only. I could be wrong about this, however.

I heard that Dicots do not have ALEURONE LAYER !!

is it true ??

Arabidopsis thaliana is a dicot and has an aleurone layer.

Forget arguments from logic. Fundamentalist cults don't do logic. 'But God told me it's the other thing.' is all they need to know.

 

For illustration only:

Let's assume for the moment that you're not gay. (No offense to you personally.) Someone sits you in a classroom and forces you to read a gay porn novel' date=' a really explicit one. It's enough to sicken you, even if you are philosophically tolerant towards gay folk.

 

That's how cultists feel when they have to open a biology textbook. To them, Darwin spits in the face of the version of God they've been taught about since infancy.

 

Don't worry, physics people. After evolution, there's the age of the universe and the obviously defective round earth theory. Also, political science folks, wars are blessed by God and the outcome decided by His intervention.

 

Get ready for the theocracy.

http://www.theocracywatch.org

http://www.theocracywatch.org/dominionism.htm[/quote']

 

Consider, that such attitudes are also much of the reason for the current conflict between fundamentalists and science. Arrogance on one side often destroys any opportunity for reconciliation.

 

Fundamentalists attack evoltution primarily because they understand it to be a threat. Little wonder that they should do when you have the likes of Dawkins running around proclaiming his nonsense.

 

Unfortunately I have not seen very many scientists try to promote meaningful dialogue. So we are left with a battle of two idealogues, one being the fundamentalist Christian, the other being the fundamentalist atheist scientist like Dawkins.

 

As a Christian I embrace evolution and percieve no threat, but then I have been educated and worked under rational professors who do not percieve religion to be the enemy. Many of these people are Christians themselves.

 

Im willing to admit the ignorance and wrong of many who claim to be Christians in propagating this stupid conflict.

 

How many of you are willing to do the same?

Carbonic anhydrase catalyses the reaction of CO2 with H2O to form H2CO3.

The second reaction doesnt require catalysis to my knowledge.

Comments appreciated

Proving Darwin’s theory of evolution for me is a simple task. However since many do not (and never will) accept this magnificent theory in all of its elegance, we will once again be in conflict where science shall have to fight against religion.

Thanks for propagating the Religion vs Science argument.

But on the other hand, you can try and use milk... often used in western blots, as one of its main protein is casein. So skimmed milk could also do.

I've alwaysed used dry skimmed milk, mixed in PBS for blocking.

Staining is essential to observing microorganisms with a light microscope so really the disadvantages of differential staining are those that arise when compared to simple staining techniques or to other microscope types. I's say one disadvantage lies in the fact that differential staining is more complicated and not as easy as simple staining. Another disadvantage could be the fact that differential stains tend to be specific to certain microorganisms, like gram positive or gram negative bacteria, so you can only stain certain species with a particular stain, whereas simple staining allows you to view more variety.

Please don't give me the rubbish about "because it is in the soil, the same chemistry does not apply". Solution chemistry in rocks and soil is my area of study and I can assure that experimental chemistry still applies, it just more complicated. If we want to get technical, the pH in soil is affected by many factors including humic and fulvic acid contents, adsorption, absorption, carbonate equilibria, silicate equilibria, bacterial activity, total ionic activity coefficients, temperature, free energy of formation for specific mineral species, etc, etc.

My point is that it doesn't matter whether the soil is basic or acidic, CaO (quicklime) is still the most effective agent for raising the pH in soils. In the end H+ + OH- >>>>> H20 and the presence of the soil does not matter

I dont think anybody has claimed that Ca(OH)2 is as good as CaO, but your posts make it sound as if Ca(OH)2 is completely worthless in neutralizing soil pH, when in fact it is quite effective.

And those other factors are essential. If you have a removal of Ca from the solution then more Ca(OH)2 will disassociate, increasing the OH- concentration. If we look at as simply the disassociation of the compound in basic water we do not see this and the effectiveness of the Ca(OH)2 is not fully realized.

I don't think absorbing is the right word. The difference here is that CaO will actively produce OH- ions, even in basic water that contains very little H3O+ ions, where as Ca(OH)2 is limited by its Ksp.

But this isnt basic water, this is the soil solution. Soil Chemistry is a whole sub-branch of its own, much like biochemistry. You do not deal with simple, basic solutions of water and one or two chems. A soil chemist I know once told me a story about a conversation he had with a physical chemist. The guy said "we spend all this time coming up with these rules for solutions and you guys go and throw dirt into them..." Soil Chemistry is messy. With soil chem one must deal with something called reserve acidity. H+ ions in soluton do not necessarily come strait from the disassociation of water. Instead they arrive in the soil solution indirectly, with the majority being absorbed to the Cation Exchange surfaces of clay particles. Ca2+ has this little tendency to become absorbed to these surfaces and be taken out of the solution.

That is why Ca(OH)2 makes such an excellent liming material, it will not stay wrapped up with the hydroxide ions, but instead find its way to negatively charged clay surfaces.

and to reduce the acidity, we add some calcium oxide, quicklime, why not add some calcium hydroxide, slaked lime?

It is used and its an excellent source of liming material. (In agriculture the term lime can refer to almost anything that is used to reduce pH). CaO has a higher Calcium Carbonate Equivalent and so is a better liming material, but slaked lime is still an excellent source with a CCE of 134. CCE or Calcium Carbonate Equivalent is a method of comparing the effectiveness of liming materials. It uses Calcium Carbonate as the standard and assigns it a value of 100. The higher the CCE the more effective the liming material and anything with a CCE of over 100 is an excellent source. If there is a reason why slaked lime is not as common it has to do with the availability and not to its effectiveness.

Thanks for the info Martin. I am interested in particle physics, however, as I am sure you are aware, the availability of information on theories other than string is limited. Until you last post I was completely unaware of Ambjorn and had only had time to really examine string theory. I will greatly enjoy the resources you have posted. Thanks.

The real problem with string theory is that there is no alternative.

What about Loop Quantum Gravity? Of course as I understand, it has few supporters and is no where as advanced as String Theory. I've been meaning to look into it some more, but just havent had the time.

String is beginning to look, as some have said, like a "machine for producing theories"

= job security

2mv1 = 3mv2 from conservation of momentum

How the hell do you get v2=2/3 v1 from that?

Shouldnt it be v2=(2mv1)/3m?

i think that in this case, you can be pretty much certain. think of it:

____O_____O

____||____||

H-O-S-O-O-S-O-H

____||____||

____O_____O

 

(peroxydisulfuric acid)

 

that would not work, as there are 2 missing H. this means that two doubly bonded oxygen atoms (one on each side) would have to break one of its bonds and form a bond with hydrogen, thus reducing the sulfur from a +6 formal charge to a +5 formal charge, which isn't too likely. my prediction is that IF this were to be formed, it would be very unstable and would be quite a strong oxidizing agent.

 

thing is that the peroxide bond would probably break and bond to hydrogen before the doubly bonhded oxygen would reduce to form O-H

True, but I just dont want Primarygun to get the wrong impression. Say he was working with some type of Carbon compound, in that case you have absolutely no clue what the substance is with nothing more than mass and percent composition.

according to my second definition i am correct:\

Im going to have to toss my vote with everyone else on this issue. Diatomic Hydrogen is Hydrogen in its elemental form. You can call it a molecule, but I am failyr certain that compounds consist of at least two different elements.

Is it necessary to name the compound with S, O , H as H2SO4?

If it is given their mole ratio is 1:4:2

The order is fixed?

Im not sure. H2SO4 is the empiracle formula, but you cant actually say that is the actual chemical formula of your substance. Any formula that fits the mole ratio is a possibility and I cant remember if in such cases you identify the substance by its empiracle formula or not.

Thx for the help. Just one more question. How do u name the compound I mean i found out that this compound has 1 carbon atom, 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. Is there a way of arranging the formula or do u just have to think of a compound with these atoms?

hehe, the naming of compounds is truly an evil business. There are a whole set of rules that govern the process.

For instance in Organic Chem a summary of the process would look like this:

1) Find the longest carbon chain which contains the functional group or multiple bond if present and name it (using the correct ending).

2) Number the longest chain (left to right or right to left) so that the functional group/multiple bond/longest side chain (branch) is on the lowest numbered carbon possible.

3) Name each side group but change the ending to -yl.

4) Use a prefix di-, tri-, tetra-, etc. to denote how many side groups of each length are present.

5) Before naming the side group give the number of the carbon to which the side group is attached.

6) Arrange the side groups in alphabetical order ignoring the prefixes di-,tri-, etc.

The molecule you listed would end with aldehyde because it has a double bonded oxygen and at least one single bonded hydrogen on the carbon. I cant remember why you have the prefix form.

Out of all the topics I teach to first year students, redox reactions are what cause the most problems. I think the nomeclature is a big problem. Of particular concern to many students is that an oxidising agent is reduced and a reducing agent is oxidised! I even have to stop and think carefully sometimes!!

I think the hard-part of redox reactions is not the concept of gaining and losing electrons, its balancing them. I absolutely despise balancing half reactions, because of all the rules that go along with adding H+ ions and everything.

That's why I always laugh at people who are working out or doing a lot of running and drinking gallons of water. Sure enough, a short while later they start getting a ton of muscle cramps because of all the water they've been drinking. lol.

Thats why I only drink enough water to wet my throat when working out.