AnonAccount: What is it, and what does it do? - Q&A Thread
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Microbiology by Martin Fembleville - Fri, 16 May 2014 20:12:57 EST ID:9O6athIh No.74720 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400285577139.jpg -(94022 B, 500x661) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 94022
How much would a good, worthwhile microscope cost? Where would I buy it? Ever since I was a kid I've been fascinated with micro biotic cells, paramecium, amoebae, didnium, vorticella and hydra being my favorites. I had a shitty microscope as a kid and would go down to the nearby creek and look at the little fuckers and watch them for hours on end. I didn't really keep the interest throughout high school but have been thinking about what profession I would like to go into college for after I complete community, and so it has resparked my interest in the micro biotic world; I've pulled out a lot of my microbiology books I had as a kid and I'm tempted to spend a good amount on one.
Ernest Blundlecocke - Fri, 16 May 2014 23:51:58 EST ID:Nbu7dGdg No.74721 Ignore Report Quick Reply
First of all, don't go for the biggest magnification possible. You can get a $40 plastic 1000x magnification microscope, but you'd be much better off with a high quality 400x.

I would suggest getting a used one. Colleges and highschools are always hemmorhaging them, and you can get a decent cheapo student 'scope. So try out craigslist or ebay. Craigslist would be best, so you could see it in person before buying, and haggle for any defects you see.

400x is sorta the standard minimum for being able to get a good view of things like yeast, diatoms, etc. Bacteria will appear as specs with 400x. So make sure it's got that.

I like metal bodies. They're sturdy. They're heavy, so it won't get knocked around when you're looking in it. It'll keep for years.

A light at the bottom is nice, but batteries suck, and adapters suck. A mirror is good enough. If you want more light, then point a flashlight into the mirror.

Some really nice things, but not essential: A fine focusing knob, a slide holder that can be moved with knobs, a diaphragm that's like a camera aperture (the spiral thing that opens and closes).

If you can check it out in person, at least make sure the 400x lens isn't cracked. Just focus on a thread or something. If you see specs, it's probably just dust.

I don't know if this is completely true, but japanese optics are great. If you see an old microscope where the name on the lenses looks japanese, it's probably decent.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Martin Fembleville - Sat, 17 May 2014 14:35:55 EST ID:9O6athIh No.74724 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Great post thanks. I was searching around on Craigslist and found this for $150

"Amscope XSG 40x-2000x compound microscope magnification: 10x, 15x, 20x eye piece with 4x, 10x, 40x, & 100x magnification. Includes eye pieces, 3 contrast lenses, user guide, fuses, lens storage cases. Pictures available. Currently used for identifying egg membrane condition for fertilization tests. "

I really don't know ANYTHING about microscopes since it's been at least 8 years since I handled one. Does this seem like a good buy? What questions should I ask the seller?
Ernest Blundlecocke - Sat, 17 May 2014 16:06:38 EST ID:Nbu7dGdg No.74727 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That sounds awesome. The price seems very fair, and it looks professional. If I had the money and lived near there, I might try to buy it before you.

Something to consider/tresearch: The 100x lens might be an oil immersion lens (look it up). There's nothing wrong with that, you just might need to get some immersion oil to use the highest magnification.

You should check it out in person. If you see obvious defects, knock the price down (look around on ebay to get an idea of the prices). Verify that the 40x objective lens is working well, because that's what you'll be using the most. The 100x is more for bacteria, is a bit of a hassel, and I think it's usually the first to break.

Things I'd let slide: if the 20x eye piece isn't spectactular. The 10x will probably be giving you a better resolution and bigger FOV anyway. Also, if EITHER the 4x or 10x objective lenses are broken, I wouldn't worry (but I would haggle). If they're both broken, then screw it.
>What questions should I ask the seller?
Why they're getting rid of it, I guess.

>it's been at least 8 years since I handled one. REMEMBER THIS!: Focus at the lower mags, then switch the lens. When you're on the higher magnification, only ever lift the lense, or else you can send the objective through the glass slide damaging the slide and lens. I still forget that shit every so often.
Eliza Brenkinchidge - Sat, 17 May 2014 22:57:12 EST ID:xzLZf8oj No.74731 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Amscope is good, we use their stereo microscopes all the time.

learning about receptors and shit by Samuel Pendlebeg - Sat, 03 May 2014 22:51:11 EST ID:8vjtclaO No.74651 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399171871225.jpg -(152244 B, 1024x512) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 152244
i'm on /psy/ a lot, and people throw terms like "5HT antagonist" around all the time. The extent of what I know about neuroscience ends at about chapter 2 of "Memoirs of an Addicted Brain"...however I really would like to learn some so as to better understand what the drugs I'm taking are actually doing, so I can make my own educated decisions on whether or not I should combine two substances, etc.
I guess what I'm wondering is if that level of understanding can be acquired as a hobby (I've already got my hands pretty full with studies so max 30 min a day is what I could afford), and what specifically should I look into studying?
Whitey Grimbanks - Sun, 04 May 2014 03:00:24 EST ID:jKtOSqrn No.74652 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Rang and dale's pharmacology is good, I think i found it on soulseek, it divides drugs into categories based on what they treat, and explains mechanisms pretty well.
Samuel Pendlebeg - Sun, 04 May 2014 03:35:33 EST ID:8vjtclaO No.74653 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Thank you anon, a specific book is even better than I was hoping for, I was expecting someone to just give me a more specific field of "neuroscience" to look into.
I'll be checking that out tomorrow, thanks again
Reuben Heblingwill - Wed, 07 May 2014 17:25:57 EST ID:kRfabX+u No.74662 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Shit Pennerwater - Sat, 17 May 2014 19:06:39 EST ID:ksU+jqmB No.74730 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm going to second the suggestion for a biochemistry or pharmacology textbook. I learned about most of that stuff at the level you're probably looking for in biochem I, so a biochem textbook may be what you're looking for. There's a lot of info to cover if you're trying to go more in depth and get a really good understanding of what's going on, but a basic understanding of how a drug functions as an agonist, antagonist, partial agonist, inverse agonist, allosteric modulator etc is really not that difficult to understand.

How is Life real by Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:42:11 EST ID:IOTJEpYV No.74540 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1397850131007.jpg -(76622 B, 500x351) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 76622
if viruses aren't real?
19 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nigel Greenshit - Thu, 08 May 2014 22:50:25 EST ID:Z5EeckPo No.74663 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Matilda Gimbleshaw - Fri, 09 May 2014 15:41:04 EST ID:oRLfV4+h No.74664 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I read it on the wikipedia page for the virus, I know its not a proper source so look at the page's source for the information. But here's the excerpt:
A teaspoon of seawater contains about one million viruses.[209] Most of these are bacteriophages, which are harmless to plants and animals, and are in fact essential to the regulation of saltwater and freshwater ecosystems.[210] They infect and destroy bacteria in aquatic microbial communities, and are the most important mechanism of recycling carbon in the marine environment. The organic molecules released from the dead bacterial cells stimulate fresh bacterial and algal growth.[211]
Microorganisms constitute more than 90% of the biomass in the sea. It is estimated that viruses kill approximately 20% of this biomass each day and that there are 15 times as many viruses in the oceans as there are bacteria and archaea. Viruses are the main agents responsible for the rapid destruction of harmful algal blooms,[212] which often kill other marine life.[213] The number of viruses in the oceans decreases further offshore and deeper into the water, where there are fewer host organisms.[214]
Charles Honningpune - Sat, 10 May 2014 00:25:57 EST ID:UcjD537E No.74665 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Wow that quote really is illuminating to me, thinking about how viruses co-evolved with bacteria in fucking ludicrous numbers over eons. Those bastards have had plenty of opportunities to gear up an arsenal. I'm studying virology right now and this makes it a bit more understandable how the fuckers are so well engineered to infect a host, even us big complicated animals.
Phoebe Dandlewill - Fri, 16 May 2014 01:40:21 EST ID:kU7ZKhzs No.74717 Ignore Report Quick Reply
bacteria don't have organelles ya dingus
Charles Wabblehall - Fri, 16 May 2014 11:47:50 EST ID:oRLfV4+h No.74718 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Lol I think he just meant like ribosomes and the lipid bilayer and shit.
But good point none the less

cwe codeine by Nicholas Summerfit - Sat, 08 Mar 2014 09:42:44 EST ID:nm+vUBn4 No.74302 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1394289764090.jpg -(1441566 B, 1944x2592) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1441566
i extracted some codeine with cwe from paracetamol+codein-combo (500mg - 15mg). but my final result looks like a chewing gum. did i fail? or is this the consistency of codeine?

pic related (its my codeine-gum)
3 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Fucking Sasslechock - Fri, 14 Mar 2014 13:48:37 EST ID:VqmUxA/w No.74348 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Wait a second. Is that "gum" the stuff that you filtered out? I really hope that's not the goop and you threw away the water.
David Brorringforth - Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:37:54 EST ID:cM6rhCgJ No.74355 Ignore Report Quick Reply


Looks like you have the filler OP
Clara Grimbanks - Sun, 23 Mar 2014 14:20:54 EST ID:iHZcrM0s No.74394 Ignore Report Quick Reply

op, the codeine was in the wash water OP, not the filtrate.

you tossed the goodies and kept the garbage.
Graham Fammlewell - Wed, 14 May 2014 05:39:20 EST ID:+y15MDRu No.74709 Ignore Report Quick Reply
do not eat that unless you want liver failure.
Priscilla Brogglewirk - Wed, 14 May 2014 19:56:40 EST ID:mj+5dAm9 No.74713 Ignore Report Quick Reply
why did u bump this. this thread is so old......

Photons, matter and shit. by Nigel Fodgestadging - Sat, 10 May 2014 05:29:51 EST ID:ZACRkBJ8 No.74666 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399714191084.jpg -(129567 B, 1320x990) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 129567
If matter can be broken apart to releases photons, could you not say that said chunk of matter always contained those photons?

Or to put another way. You have a box. You break the box open to find a cat inside. It's dead, but anyway.. Would you say that until you broke the box open there was a cat worth of unicorns tears (stand-in for energy) that can take on many forms in the box which was transformed into a cat the exact moment you broke it open? No you'd say there was a cat in the box, and the contrary would be absurd.
29 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Augustus Sashfog - Mon, 12 May 2014 21:12:56 EST ID:Nbu7dGdg No.74700 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> I think it's a component of larger particles; going around them at the speed c to produce the uncertainty principle.
>Which is to say that I think the larger particles actually change shape and hence registered position constantly in a sinusoidal fashion wrt time.
Sorry, but this is all fairly meaningless.
>Which is to say that the reason a particle doesn't appear to be in a specific spot until you measure it as being there is because it wasn't a moment before you found it there.
That almost sounds like:
Cornelius Chullerbedging - Mon, 12 May 2014 22:17:40 EST ID:ZACRkBJ8 No.74702 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The detail is in the minutiae.

Don't worry though I kind of prefer it if you don't take it seriously.
Cornelius Chullerbedging - Mon, 12 May 2014 22:27:44 EST ID:ZACRkBJ8 No.74703 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This attitude though.
>Aww.. yeah well.. QFT is kind of nice but it's just like nearly a restatement of like this other stuff people have done

Yeah maybe because they're both attempts to describe the same thing, dude.
Augustus Sashfog - Mon, 12 May 2014 22:44:12 EST ID:Nbu7dGdg No.74704 Ignore Report Quick Reply
My point is that you should look at the copenhagen interpretation. You're trying to come up with crazy theories without knowing the fundamentals. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't see the point.

Better than wikipedia is the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy's article. You are the guy on /b/ the other day talking about philosophy and "contradicting" science, right? Well this is probably more up your alley:
Cornelius Chullerbedging - Mon, 12 May 2014 22:58:40 EST ID:ZACRkBJ8 No.74705 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Lol I'm not the person you speak of I haven't been on this website in months.

Pchem math? by Hannah Chepperbury - Sun, 11 May 2014 18:47:40 EST ID:SneqK8/u No.74690 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399848460649.jpg -(53373 B, 550x412) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 53373
How much math for p-chem 1? Granted I know more the better. Some say cal 2 is fine, other cal 3. Some even suggest going as far as linear algebra.
Archie Fennerpat - Sun, 11 May 2014 20:42:41 EST ID:XD/Rd2uj No.74691 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1399855361313.gif -(5159 B, 426x217) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 5159
I just finished pchem 1 at my university, which is the thermodynamics one. You definitely need a solid understanding of calculus that's for sure. There were plenty of partial derivatives, and integrals to do. So you only need around the calc 2 level for sure, maybe calc 3 depending on your school. I did not use linear algebra in my thermodynamics course, however, it is a useful skill set to have, and I'm fairly certain it is required for higher level chemistry courses.
Hope this helps

Chem question by Graham Bebblebanks - Sun, 04 May 2014 23:58:08 EST ID:CWPUZJca No.74657 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399262288558.gif -(1863489 B, 320x180) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1863489
An unknown diatomic “R2“ is diffusing 1.479 times faster than Cl2 in a 5.00 L glass bulb
being held at 388 K. The total mass of the gas mixture is 4.48 g, and the mixture is 34.6% by
mass Cl2. Determine the pressure, in atm, in the 5.00 L glass bulb.

Could anyone help me out with this one? Im guessing i use PV=nRT at some point but i dont really know how to set this up.
Graham Billingfuck - Mon, 05 May 2014 18:56:26 EST ID:Nbu7dGdg No.74659 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>An unknown diatomic “R2“ is diffusing 1.479 times faster than Cl2...
What does this mean?

What's important is you know the total mass of the gas, and you know the weight percent of Cl2. So you can figure out the mass of Cl2. Then you can figure out the number of moles of Cl2, and can use PV=nRT to figure out the partial pressure of Cl2.

You also now know the weight of R2. You can probably use the diffusing data to figure out the weight of R2 ((mw of Cl2)/1.479)? Figure out the partial pressure for R2 then add them together for the total pressure.

If you didn't understand any of that, go back to your book to the partial pressure section.
OP IS A FAG - Mon, 05 May 2014 23:48:53 EST ID:CWPUZJca No.74660 Ignore Report Quick Reply
thank you sir, that clear things up a little bit for me i think i can figure it out now. and R2 is just a variable for the unkown Diatomic element. it should be R subscript 2
Ebenezer Gagglewore - Sat, 10 May 2014 17:13:39 EST ID:zP+gSGWa No.74678 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Use grahams law to get the molecular weight of the unknown gas. Use the molecular weights with the mass data to determine number of mols of each, use ideal gas to determine partial pressure of each, sum is total pressure.

Lack of symmetry by Nigger Goodfuck - Mon, 05 May 2014 05:15:40 EST ID:ebvaoUKY No.74658 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399281340534.png -(23517 B, 1024x459) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 23517
sup /chem/

I had a few questions about certain things:

I'm taking a course in the fall titled 'Introduction to Drug Discovery' and a main topic of the course is Symmetry and Group Theory. I have taken up to an advanced inorganic course, but I still fall short of totally understanding group theory and it's relation to symmetry. Symmetry is fairly understandable, but if I'm not mistaken, the relation between it and group theory is the 'reducible' and 'irreducible' forms of the symmetry. My lack of understanding is relating any form of symmetry to an actual atom, or extrapolating it to larger molecules. I'm able to construct MO diagrams with things such as H30+, ethylene, and very basic compounds as you'd learn in inorganic coursed, but with only a basic understanding of the actual group theory behind it (apparently used to find energy of each bonding/non bonding orbital). I'm a bit worried about a course that further projects this idea, and I was wondering if anyone had any literature that would help correlate the two ideas.
Syllogism - Tue, 06 May 2014 00:18:35 EST ID:stqlrmZK No.74661 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Interesting course design. I always took Symmetry and Group Theory to be more of an advanced o-chem topic and I'm surprised a drug class isn't focussing more on QSAR.

I've never heard group theory referred to as reducable vs. irreducable, but that might just be a difference in lingo. Basically, group theory defines a set of 'symmetry operators,' and if two molecules have the same value for each operator, they're in the same group. And if two molecules are in the same group, they'll have similar properties with respect to molecular orbitals and spectroscopy and stuff. The inverse is also true, molecules in different symmetry groups will differ in their properties. You're seeing that in the pic you posted: water and its conjugate acid/bases' molecular orbitals change in a predictable fashion as its symmetry changes.

Group theory's basically a huge shortcut for outlining molecular properties that would take long and tedious equations to solve formally, and to that effect, is of huge value to experimentalists who don't give a fuck about whatever their theorist colleagues are babbling about.

Anyway, here's a reference on the symmetry operators for group theory and examples of the most common symmetry groups. This is certainly not my area of expertise but i do hope it helped.

Disillation by Hamilton Sellywell - Sat, 03 May 2014 16:34:30 EST ID:4oEHD5UU No.74647 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399149270903.gif -(126471 B, 200x199) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 126471
Would a glass chemistry distiller be a good means of distilling water for drinking? Lets say like max a gallon or two a day
Nigel Brookhood - Sat, 03 May 2014 18:18:59 EST ID:Nbu7dGdg No.74648 Ignore Report Quick Reply
OH FUUUUUUCK that gif is awesome. Best gif ever. Know where it's from? google image search is just showing a bunch of reposts.

THere's lots of distilling setups in chemistry. Glass is great, but not really practical for drinking water. It's expensive and fragile.

Look up recipes for a simple "pot still". Like the kind they make whiskey with. has a bunch of plans. Even if you're just using it for water, the theory is the same. You just don't need to overdo it with a reflux still.
Hamilton Sellywell - Sat, 03 May 2014 19:43:37 EST ID:4oEHD5UU No.74649 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Thanks man i appreciate it

Ad for the GIF i picked a random one that i downloaded and it was fucking sick so i hoped i would get a hit on the post, and I did, so thanks again!

Climate Change by Thomas Ganningbanks - Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:02:15 EST ID:uX/2IjDh No.74574 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1398258135969.jpg -(187978 B, 634x650) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 187978
Climate scientists say that the leading cause of climate change is the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. To back that up they use the measurement (ppm) parts per million. The thing is that climate scientists say they are 'alarmed' because the ppm of carbon has increased from 200 to 400. Why im sure there is more to it than this, is just doesn't seem like much. It's insignificant. Take my analogy; If I had $400 instead of $200, I would barely be that much closer to being a millionaire. My point is, if we use ppm, the ratio of atmospheric carbon barely changes. So my question is why does that alarm anybody and why is such a measurement anything to go on in saying humans are responsible for climate change?
6 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Phoebe Chimmerkon - Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:19:18 EST ID:uX/2IjDh No.74603 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well yes but his key point was that CO2 barely effects the temperature of earth and implied it would just be reabsorbed. I don't deny climate change but nor can I disprove him. I think if I knew more about CO2 I could say "Hey, that's not what CO2 does". I just think if more people knew more about the chemical properties of C02 (including myself here) then it would give more people the ability to have some grounds to critically analyze statements like the one (>>74599) made.
Sidney Porringmidging - Thu, 01 May 2014 11:10:47 EST ID:nyJIpFK0 No.74639 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1398957047314.jpg -(294597 B, 1182x814) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 294597
This post brought to you by Trump(TM) industries.

Climate change is a big farce that is bad for industry. You don't want to be bad for industry do you? That's communist!

Really though, you and the rest of your creationist friends are low-tier garbage. A UN conspiracy to what? Utilize renewable energy and cut emissions? OH THE SOCIALISTS ARE TAKING OVER.

Do not ever return to this board.
Alice Deddlemet - Fri, 02 May 2014 10:43:45 EST ID:uX/2IjDh No.74640 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1399041825535.jpg -(76543 B, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 76543
Since you are dragging politics into this. Suppose climate change could be proven beyond a doubt to be strongly influenced by mankind, then it would have strong political implications. It WOULD mean that people would have to feel more motivated to switch to renewable energy and create a sustainable society where energy never runs out and less mining occurs. The man in that political cartoon you posted sums up that point perfectly.

But academically I would rather explore the evidence that exists without favouring one conclusion over the other. It is true that if research discovered that the manmade effect in climate change was minimal, then nobody would bother to change the way they use resources. But even so I think I would stand by the evidence even if the knowledge of that evidence was going to make people reach that conclusion. This is why I hate it when science is mixed with politics, since it blinds peoples judgement. I only want the truth even If I don't like or want it, because that is what science is all about.
Emma Dodgeture - Fri, 02 May 2014 14:53:38 EST ID:gWgs9bU0 No.74641 Ignore Report Quick Reply
OP doesn't realise that in complex dynamical systems, small changes variable values (CO2) can cause a dramatic change in the system (climate). A change in 200 to 400 ppm isn't trivial; that's a twice increase.

Learn some basic environmental chemistry and re-asses your views. That's really the best thing you can do; learn the science behind the rationale and learn to critique the research (which you aren't doing at all by being a 'sceptic' or w/e).
Hannah Fandock - Fri, 02 May 2014 20:37:09 EST ID:uX/2IjDh No.74644 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1399077429294.jpg -(118715 B, 519x613) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 118715
Well I did study gas concentrations in chemistry. I know it's twice the amount but it's the differences between a very dilute substance and a slightly more dilute substance. If we use a ratio we can see that 200-400ppm is 0.02%-0.04%. From that, your argument would need to verify that the environment is so sensitive to carbon dioxide concentrations that even 0.02 should be enough to drive the greenhouse effect. I don't doubt your view at all, but I find it very uncanny that such a low change in gas concentration should be able to drive something as powerful as the greenhouse effect. I just think there should be something more to this that i'm overlooking and I don't know what it is.

GE'ing RuBisCO to defeat Global Warming. by Doris Draffingbury - Sat, 19 Apr 2014 19:22:00 EST ID:EwWywDvg No.74549 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1397949720704.jpg -(61048 B, 672x513) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 61048
For the uninitiated, RuBisCo is the photosynthetic enzyme responsible for taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, combining it with RUB5, and making 3-Phosphoglycerate, which creates energy for the plant/bacteria/whatever. However, there's one fatal problem with this system. RuBisCO is a fucking piece of shit enzyme.

First off, normal enzymes can make tens or even hundreds of thousands of molecules a second. How many molecules can RuBisCO make per second, you ask? Fucking 3. 3 Molecules a second. Plant make up for this by creating a lot of RuBisCO, but the amount of Co2 they take up is still pathetic compared to what it could be.

What's worse, it can't differentiate between CO2 and plain old O2. The problem? For one thing, the O2 can't even catalyze a reaction, cutting the production of molecules (and CO2 uptake) by half, meaning that instead of making 3 molecules of 3-Phosphoglycerate, it only makes 1 or 2 per second. Oh yeah, and BTW, when RUB5 combines with O2, it makes a compound which actually *poisons* the fucking plant.

Anyways, researchers have been trying for a while now to genetically engineer RuBisCO to not be a fucking piece of shit, but progress is slow. This link ( ) can give you a decent primer on why. One thing that it doesn't mention is that recent methods of trying to GE RuBisCO to take in less O2 also lead it to take in less CO2, making that route of study less viable for the time being.

The best route, however, may be to simply increase the rate of molecule production by RuBisCO instead of limiting O2 intake. I just got finished reading a paper here ( which suggests that carbamylation activates RuBisCO and nitrosylation inactivates it, trapping the CO2 or o2 in the active site. Thus, nitrosylation could be a means of controlling RuBisCO activity .

How does any of this "defeat" Global Warming? Simple. If the activity of RuBisCO were to be doubled in the majority of plant species, It would halt the increasing concentrations of CO2 the atmosphere,. What's more, it could end up dropping the concentration by 25-50ppm. If the activity level were tripled, it could drop CO2 levels by as much as 100ppm. CO2 levels could be back to pre-industrial levels in just a few decades.

My main reasoning for posting is that I'm looking for a few experts to answer some questions for me:

>Has there been any progress in the past year on controlling RuBisCO activity?
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
11 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Matilda Fillytut - Sat, 26 Apr 2014 09:55:34 EST ID:Nbu7dGdg No.74628 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That's a pretty far out idea.
>The technology is clearly not here yet, however, and it would likely take several decades of research for this sort of project to become truly feasible. I'm confident, however, that while it can't stop global warming anytime soon, it can certainly (eventually) reverse it.
Like I said before, why not simply fertilize the ocean? It would cost millions less. I suppose the only downside is the possibility of creating an ice age (if we "slip" with the iron) or other unintended consequences (which is also a problem with releasing nanobots in the wild).
Alice Niggerford - Sun, 27 Apr 2014 18:02:12 EST ID:gDHcxa93 No.74629 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If we engineer a cellular component to be that much more efficient I fear it could sweep across the Earth and out-compete everything else. This could decimate diversity for a few hundred million years.
Oliver Bishwater - Mon, 28 Apr 2014 22:08:17 EST ID:/oDrJq4q No.74636 Ignore Report Quick Reply

No wonder the enzyme's rate is so shitty: even with stabilization from Mg2+ that's a pretty energetically unfavorable reaction.
Syllogism - Tue, 29 Apr 2014 02:54:14 EST ID:stqlrmZK No.74637 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1398754454904.gif -(26390 B, 210x210) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 26390

CO2(aq) + NHR2(aq) -> carbamate actually isn't as awful as it looks. There's a big entropy difference when considering gaseous and aqueous CO2, after all. CO2(aq) is a very ordered system, so by comparison the carbamate formation is an entropy increase. And a system with +ΔH and +ΔS will move toward spontaneity as temperature increases.

The problem is that this reaction is in competition with the phase change between aqueous and gas state, which makes the reaction very case dependant on exposure to the atmosphere. It doesn't matter how favorable carbamate formation from aqueous CO2 is... if there's no aqueous CO2.

In the blood, where respiration is pumping CO2 out like it was going out of style, an aqueous -> gas equilibrium system can't exist until the volume of blood reaches the lungs. So here CO2 can dock to hemeglobin via carbamate formation, and will undock when the opportunity to undergo gas exchange presents itself. In plants, gas exchange occurs much more frequently near the tissues that undergo photosynthesis, and so the PCO2 for rubisco just doesn't compare.
Emma Dodgeture - Fri, 02 May 2014 15:04:58 EST ID:gWgs9bU0 No.74643 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Aww shit. P chem is voodoo magic.

That picture. Aw man, learning about membrane depolarisations in electrophysiology. Dat K+ current.

Why no entropy device? by David Fanshaw - Sun, 27 Apr 2014 19:31:39 EST ID:hpG/0AIC No.74630 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1398641499551.jpg -(50083 B, 522x522) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 50083
Idk if I'm even using that word right, but I can't think of a better name.
why isn't there something that can absorb energy from it's surroundings? There's a lot of energy just in the air, so why can't something absorb that energy? It would use a chemical and/or physical reaction to suck the heat out of the air, absorbing the energy and spitting out cold air. I suppose it would take a lot of air to get something big moving, but what if it could work in water too.

Energy/matter can't normally be created or destroyed. When you use energy, you're really just moving it around. So I don't understand why this hasn't been invented yet.
Thomas Turveybanks - Sun, 27 Apr 2014 20:34:20 EST ID:nVbMg10U No.74631 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Eliza Criddleworth - Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:35:49 EST ID:Nbu7dGdg No.74632 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Your post kinda sounds like you're talking about "free energy", in which case go to thomas's link.

But it also sounds like you're just talking about moving some energy from a cold place to a warmer place, which is possible as long as you're spending energy and increasing the entropy of the universe. It's called a heat pump. That's actually what a fridge does. It absorbs heat from inside the fridge, and expels the heat outside the fridge. There's ADDITIONAL heat that's generated outside the fridge, thanks to the second law of thermo.
Eliza Criddleworth - Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:41:24 EST ID:Nbu7dGdg No.74633 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1398649284605.png -(18724 B, 300x154) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 18724
From wiki:
>1) condenser, 2) expansion valve, 3) evaporator, 4) compressor.
When the refrigerant condenses, it releases energy, heating up it's surrounding area (which is why steam is particularly painful).

The expansion valve is where the refrigerant flows into the cold side of the heat pump.

When it evaporates, it takes heat from its surrounding (Think of how sweat cools you down).

Then the compressor adds energy and extra heat and entropy to keep the cycle going. The refrigerant condenses and the cycle is back to the beginning.

The whole process moves energy from the cold side to the hot side.
Eliza Criddleworth - Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:49:06 EST ID:Nbu7dGdg No.74634 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1398649746605.png -(47545 B, 715x367) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 47545
>1) condenser, 2) expansion valve, 3) evaporator, 4) compressor.

The condensor is where the refrigerant condenses. It transfers energy to the tubing/hotside, much like steam burns when it condenses on your skin.

The evaporator is on the cold side. When the refrigerant evaporates, it takes energy from its surrounding. Much like sweat is cooling when it evaporates off your skin.

The gas refrigerant the goes through the compressor, forcing it to the hot side. THe compressor is where energy is spent, and entropy is being increased. It also resets the cycle.

>Idk if I'm even using that word right
not really, just because entropy of the universe is always increasing. "entropy device" sounds mystical, but every machine and every transformation is increasing entropy. The heat pump decreases entropy *OF THE SYSTEM,* but not of the universe.
Eliza Criddleworth - Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:50:00 EST ID:Nbu7dGdg No.74635 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Motherfucker, now you show up? After I rewrote the post? Fuck you.

<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.