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


Chem Homework Explanation please by Martha Wuzzleham - Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:39:52 EST ID:8tQGzRP2 No.75014 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1405373992882.jpg -(82405 B, 612x612) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 82405
Hi I am working on colligative properties and have reached boiling point elevation and freezing point depression with the
Delta Tb = mKb formulas

I am confused by the logic of these though. It seems you factor in the moles of solute to the Delta T formula blah blah... but wouldn't the change in boiling or freezing point depend on WHAT the substance is? for instance im doing one on .575 m Eugenol dissolved into diethyl ether. The explanation given just says you multiply the amount of Eugenol moles by freezing and boiling point constants of ether to find the boiling point and freezing point depression/elevations.

Wouldn't this be dependent on how dense the substance is or what its boiling point or freezing point is? I mean, if something has a 500 degree celsius boiling point and you drop .575 m of it into ether wouldnt that change the elevation a lot more than the eugenol? please explain this logic!!!
Henry Chillychot - Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:11:46 EST ID:+0Ci6TLP No.75015 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You'll change the specific heat of the solution based on what substance you add to the eugenol; that's probably what you're thinking about. Basically, you're looking at how much "interference" there is for the eugenol. The kinetic theory says almost static molecules are solid, mobile molecules are liquid, and highly mobile are gasses. With more molecules of bullshit getting in the way, the farther of a distance, the bigger a maze of molecules the fastest moving molecules of eugenol have to navigate to get to the surface and enter the vapor phase (or boil, however you'd like to state it.)
Martha Wuzzleham - Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:03:42 EST ID:8tQGzRP2 No.75016 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well yea it's ether and im given the boiling point and its constants, all that good shit for ether. I'm just saying it seems like, the way the equations are given, that the eugenol could be any substance as long as the molarity was the same and still it would change the Boiling Point Elevation in the same amount.

The solvent was ether. So you're saying that basically any solute added to the ether to make a solution will just make it harder for the ether to boil? Is that what these questions are asking? what you said makes sense but I still don't get why/if this effect is independent of what substance is added. Wouldn't a molecule twice as large as eugenol change the boiling point twice as much?
Jenny Fovinghood - Tue, 15 Jul 2014 03:13:51 EST ID:OCTRypOF No.75017 Ignore Report Quick Reply
now someone can correct me if im wrong but you are referring to the boiling and freezing point depression/elevation of the solution. Im a little rusty but i think i am correct in assuming when there is a substance dissociated in the solvent and the solution is put to boil, it doesnt necessarily matter what the substance is (to a negligible degree?) but what does matter is the molarity of the solution in relation to whatever substance is dissociated
Martin Closslestone - Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:13:21 EST ID:c7PD3ms3 No.75018 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Correct. The effects are physical, not chemical. What's important is *something* is getting between solvent molecules
Martin Closslestone - Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:43:54 EST ID:c7PD3ms3 No.75019 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also, it's important to remember that these colligative property formulas are only for ideal situations. Obviously, if you add a substance that acts as a seed crystal, then it won't be lowering the freezing point. If you add a very volatile substance, then it will evaporate before raising the boiling point. The boiling and freezing point depression/elevation is for small, non-volatile, non-aggregate solutes

Acid-Base Extractions: I don't know what the fuck by Ian Chonningspear - Wed, 09 Jul 2014 16:14:57 EST ID:GBHOrOti No.74984 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404936897699.jpg -(205204 B, 913x874) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 205204
Howdy /chem/! I was wondering if y'all could help me out with something.
I'm planning on getting a few dozen pounds of cacti and doing an Acid/Base extraction on the alkaloids therein. I've read a bunch of teks online, which is fine, but I don't exactly know the actual chemistry works, which bothers me. It makes me leery of purchasing anything and following one tek, because I can't distinguish which one might give a higher yield than another. Y'know? I'd rather not fuck up and waste $150 worth of shit because I don't know what I'm doing.
tl;dr how the fuck does an acid/base extraction work?
Samuel Trotbanks - Wed, 09 Jul 2014 17:53:32 EST ID:jKtOSqrn No.74985 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Different compounds are soluble/ionized at different ph values, if you follow the tek, you shouldn't have any problems
John Tootwill - Sat, 12 Jul 2014 02:15:28 EST ID:+0Ci6TLP No.75003 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Think of it like magnetism. With a molecule, it can have zones of positive charge and/OR zones of negative charge. If you have something positive, it is attracted to negative things and repelled by positive things; things that are attracted to each other comingle and form a solution; things that are repelled by each other do not comingle and thus do not form a solution.

So what you're doing is saying "this thing I want is kinda positive, so I need to put it in something kinda negative to separate it from all the neutral/negative substances that I don't want". Once you have your positive thing swimming around in all the negative juices and you throw away the stuff you don't want, you decide that you don't want the negative stuff either, so you add stuff that reacts with your negative things to cancel them out and make them neutral. Since your positive stuff doesn't like to be mixed with neutral stuff, it falls to the bottom if it's heavy or rises to the top if it's light, and then you have a layer of the positive stuff you wanted to isolate.

That's a quick and dirty explanation.
As for yields: you'll get a higher yield by using plenty of the most important reagent in chemistry: TIME. As long as you have enough solvent to hold all of your solute, you can maximize your yield by allowing your stuff to sit and leech out for a long time, and performing multiple extractions on your raw materials.
Reuben Brickledock - Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:06:16 EST ID:GBHOrOti No.75009 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Aha! Thank you kindly for the illuminating illumination.

Whats the deal with the biotech field? by Whitey Chepperhood - Thu, 10 Jul 2014 21:39:25 EST ID:8tQGzRP2 No.74989 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1405042765452.jpg -(639923 B, 1481x1376) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 639923
I am looking at majoring in chem right now, I really like the idea of working around organic chem but really I'd be happy working in industry doing any kind of biotech work. (Obviously something with a bit of creativity, work, and opportunity behind it)

I am getting very mixed messages from reading about the chemistry job market though. It seems that a bachelors chemist will probably be stuck around the 45-50k mark unless they have some serious credentials behind them. If I stick with this I plan to get a masters but that does not look that much more promising. I'd be ok with doing work I enjoy for sort of mediocre pay but the job opportunities in the US seem to be kind of soulsucking too based on what I've read (it could just be people who fucked up and are now bitching online).

Basically I'm wondering is where the real demand for workers is among all the different biotech fields. Is chemistry just in a lull right now and perhaps investing in the degree now will pay off a decade or so down the line when demand for chemists increases? Will working as a petrochemist net me the income I desire while still allowing me to work with my favored field of science?

Also, ideally I'd like to be able to start a chemistry based business after 10-15 years experience in the field. I am still doing my research and am not sure yet what kind of business options are out there for a chemist looking to create a small start up. Is it profitable to learn how to synthesize obscure chemicals very well and just provide the best product on the market?

I'm kind of just rambling here so let's make this a biotech industry general thread.
8 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Jack Hizzleneg - Sat, 12 Jul 2014 03:56:42 EST ID:8tQGzRP2 No.75004 Ignore Report Quick Reply
yes that's why I want to go for a masters. something like chem engineering is where you can coast in with bachelors and build yourself off work experience alone.

It seems like a bachelors in chem is seen as someone who was not capable of moving further and is kind of relegated to the worker bee roles unless they really prove themselves. On the flipside though I think PHDs are kind of seen as maybe a liability due to the fact they might not be loyal to jobs that may seem "below them" and along with that they may want higher pay better treatment etc etc. It's too much responsibility for some companies to take on.

Masters in chem? To me that says you love the subject enough to go the extra mile to master it, but at the same time were eager enough to move out of academia and into the job market that you did not go for a PHD.
Hamilton Clocklemadging - Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:14:13 EST ID:juaFM+yJ No.75005 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I have a job doing this kind of work making 50k on the east coast USA. The chem/bio job market is NOT what it once was, I saw the job market closing up during the end of my B.Sc. in chem and M.Sc. in biochem ~2009 to present.

I applied to more than 100 positions and had 4 interviews over the course of 3 months before I found a good offer! So it really had died off from the boom of the 1990's. With a just a B.Sc. you would likely be starting at something like 30k, unless you have some serious industry experience or interships. Industry values industrial internships over academic work by a long shot.

The job market is certainly tough, but if you really enjoy the work and go full out on the job hunt you can still make science into a stable and rewarding career.
Lydia Druttingbock - Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:01:30 EST ID:8tQGzRP2 No.75006 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Any idea how much of a difference getting the masters will make? If industry wins out as far as getting jobs then I am in luck as my plan is to go straight into the field. Research sounds great, but the rest of academia seems like a crock of shit I want no part in.

As far as experience this may seem like an obvious question but if you are willing to put in the hours working for shit wages to gain experience it should pay in the long run no?
Lydia Druttingbock - Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:06:11 EST ID:8tQGzRP2 No.75007 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also, as someone working in the field do you expect things to go on an upswing over time as the American economy hopefully becomes more stable? Chemistry seems like a science that is integral to so many different industries, it doesn't seem right that there would be no demand for chemists. Just that the weak are being filtered out now.

Anyone have any opinions on the global market for chemistry? I have heard other countries can provide many more opportunities to a budding chemist than the US, because America specifically has a stagnant chem industry due to outsourcing and all that good stuff.
Simon Blammlechitch - Sun, 13 Jul 2014 07:56:40 EST ID:juaFM+yJ No.75008 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The M.Sc. can make a big difference just because it sets you apart from the herd a little and gives you access to more creative/R&D/problem solving type positions. One stigma that kind of persists is that M.Sc. holders are "quitters" of a PhD program. In many cases that is exactly what happened, but it still is not a fair stereotype. Just know that you will face that perception in the field.

A B.Sc. just out of college now days usually can only get a glorified lab tech position. You might not be called a "tech" and you might end up managing a lab of tech level people who don't have an indepth chemistry background, but either way it is usually a lot of robot work. You may be very good at running a certain process or doing a certain test, but that is all you get to do day in day out.

You are right in that chemistry is so important it will never be phased out completely. There will always be US based jobs for competitive candidates, keyword being competitive. Right now there is a huge excess of chemists at all degree levels so companies can get away with paying less and being more selective.

I don't think this will ever change although it might get more relaxed, there are signs the recently the chem job market is starting to pick up with the economy. Even though I have got a long term R&D type career position with great benefits I still have job recruiters calling me weekly about "oh well, we found your resume on monster/ x". This makes me think that demand is starting to pick back up. I don't know if I can comment accurately on the global market, but world wide chem is certainly growing and always will be. It is just so integral to society that there will always be need for chemists and molecular biologists somewhere :)

How to MAKE DRUGS. ALL OF THEM. by Ernest Hucklewit - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 01:17:09 EST ID:PcMJhcpa No.74947 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404623829165.jpg -(165031 B, 1536x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 165031
I have no LAB atm. I have about $200 saved for simple stuff like flasks, beakers, hotplate stirrers, a condenser. I'm would like to learn how to do "Illegal" chemistry through legal routes and procedure.. in short the synthesis of everything from AMT, benzos, cathinone, datura...I also want start growing psychoactive plants..

Whats the best way to learn this stuff? I got 250mb of books like
Experiments in Inorganic Chemistry
VOGEL practical chem 3

Like I said... I have ZERO chemistry experience...I have never touched a flask but I want to learn. But not learn by doing stuff like pill extractions...

What should I buy for Glassware, Chemicals and safety stuff?. Also I need to learn to build a FUME HOOD and Water Aspirator.. and I need a Stirrer Hotplate.. etc
I know NOTHING about venting deadly chemicals... I am researching fume cupboards, etc. my "lab" location is a shack with no water or power... and I wanted to set up a small lab in the basement for non volatile reactions.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
8 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Thomas Brullyshit - Tue, 08 Jul 2014 22:03:07 EST ID:gzUPhZ+W No.74975 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Fuck man, you can learn a lot on the cleannet (free too). You can make meth or do a few extractions without really knowing anything but, say you want to cook LSD. That's a whole new game. You will actually have to learn chemistry for that stuff. You probably get flagged on some LE server for just googling anything drug making related but so have a fair amount of people.
Martha Harrylure - Tue, 08 Jul 2014 22:42:34 EST ID:8tQGzRP2 No.74978 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm telling you man put the drug making idea on the backburner and go to classes somewhere to learn chem for chem's sake. If the material still interests even when you look at it from a purely scientific point of view and not with the end result being free drugs, then you're probably gonna be able to do it. otherwise it's a big risk
Thomas Wuddlenene - Tue, 08 Jul 2014 22:59:59 EST ID:PcMJhcpa No.74979 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1404874799667.jpg -(313307 B, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 313307
I know this is a slow process, and I don't want to cook meth, but the precursors and stuff related to these drugs and the science and chemistry fascinates me.. The most illegal thing I do is THC extractions. I want to learn distillations... and I work at a Hardware Store and sell all kinds of stuff.. like PVC Glue which says its composed of MEK, Acetone and Cyclohexenone or something, and I think it would be "fun" to seperate them, learn vapor pressure, fractional and atmospheric distillation... I don't just wanna just start making drugs, I want to and know I NEED to learn the chemistry first. I'm starting out small with what I got. I know $200 isn't shit, but it's enough for a cheap 24/40 distillation set off ebay and some basic chemicals.. and the books and some more glassware and I can start just practicing chemistry which is what I really WANT TO DO

Rather than getting precursors for LSD (which would REALLY freak me out) I would rather learn stuff like; Amination, Purification Chromatograhy, Coupling, Ion transfer, Phase Transfer Catalysts and everything else I posted in the pastebin, All of which are legal legit chemical processes. I don't need to break the law to learn this stuff, and I think if I learn it right, slow and take my time with it and put in all my effort I could become a good chemist one day.

And one day if I can master these skills I can use them to make my dreams come true (stuff like making MDMA and DMT) but I would rather learn the chemistry first and NOT break the law..
Phoebe Deffinghadge - Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:39:40 EST ID:c7PD3ms3 No.74982 Ignore Report Quick Reply
YOu've got the right idea. Check out the sciencemadness link. Just don't bring up drugs at all, because it will bring backlash. Study chemistry, and then read different literature on drugs to keep your interest piqued.

>I know $200 isn't shit
I can definitely get you started, since you're trying to genuinely learn.

I suggest you start with acid/base chemistry. Safety glasses are fucking essential. Get safety glasses. No excuses. Do it. A box of nitrile gloves is $5. A coat or apron is also useful (NaOH burns suck balls). The glasses are essential. Burns on the hand aren't a HUGE deal. Burns on the eyes are.

For chemicals, get HCl, NaOH and some indicator dyes (at the very least phenolphthalein). KHP is also needed.

For equipment, Get a 0.1g scale (a good weed scale) for $10. Get a graduated cyclinder (a 50ml and a 10ml would be ideal). get a 50ml burette. Find out what a ring stand is, and either buy one or improvise one. Get a couple ring stand clips. get a couple 100ml, and a couple 250ml earlenmeyers. get a 100 or 250ml beaker, and a watch glass. Get a packet of plastic transfer pipettes.

That will be under 200, and everything will be useful for future distillations and synthesis (yes, even the burette. it can be a ghetto small scale chroma column). It will be enough lab equipment to get a good rough start with analytical and general chemistry. Also, you will break some of the glass so it's good to have extra money for replacements.

If you can figure out how to do a titration experiment, you're off to a fantastic start. The hardest part will be conceptualizing everything, but it will definitely be worth your time. Google lots of different labs for basic titration that involve KHP and phenolphthalien. It's usually the first week of analytical, or within the first semester of gen chem. It will get you familiar with note taking, molar calculations and general lab practices.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Martha Harrylure - Wed, 09 Jul 2014 02:03:52 EST ID:8tQGzRP2 No.74983 Ignore Report Quick Reply
In my opinion then you should buy a college's chem1 lab book and even if you cant go to that school, use the procedures on those experiments to learn about basic titration neutralization etcc etc. The chem classes do get interesting. If you do the curriculum ie buy textbooks and follow them and link with lab work you should get better quick although it will be hard. khan academy is good too.

Fukushima Radiation and Sea Food by Wanderer - Sat, 05 Jul 2014 16:18:07 EST ID:S1tNJEj8 No.74939 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404591487596.jpg -(33222 B, 640x361) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 33222
I can't tell if we should eat seafood from the Pacific or not. I have read a lot of conflicting material. The official reports from the FDA say don't worry... I don't trust .gov though.

I don't want my bones to disintegrate in 15 years from cesium-137 but I really love sushi. What to do?
Angus Webblesadge - Sat, 05 Jul 2014 19:05:45 EST ID:c7PD3ms3 No.74940 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Infowars sells iodine pills. They're trying to scare you into buying their pills. It's a fucking disgusting racket. FUCK infowars. Never trust them. That link is horrible, First of all, a geiger counter can't differentiate between natural radiation and radiation from Fukushima. Second, those amounts of radiation aren't dangerous. third there's no control. Fourth, they're taking the word of a highschooler with no scientific training. Fifth, woods hole absolutely got US and Japanese money to track fukushima radiation. Sixth, I doubt China fishes in japanese territorial waters (not positive though). I could go on, but that should be enough.

The radioactive isotopes are only in unacceptable concentrations right off of the coast of japan, in bottom feeders. Farther away from the coast, it's fine. The isotopes do not bioaccumulate. Rather, they're secreted by the kidneys. So by the time fish travel a few hundred miles, they've pissed out most of the Cs.

There are detectable amounts of Cs-137 from fukushima, but you're receiving more radiation from the potassium that's already in sea water. It's not a significant amount, it's just a testament to how good scientists are at detecting isotopes. Health physicists, biologist, physical oceanographers and oncologists are in agreement that pacific sea food is safe. The situation is being monitored.

This is a long video from a person actually researching this exact topic. It's from woods hole, the organization infowars thinks is saying we're all gonna die from radiation: .

I suggest listening to the No Agenda podcast instead of that infowars shit. I can't find the relevant clips, but they've thoroughly debunked this nuclear fear mongering. Again, fuck alex jones.
Jenny Boddleworth - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 02:16:53 EST ID:BuEwoQsj No.74951 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is how I feel it stands, someone feel free to correct me or add.

Right now, the levels of nuclear waste from Fukushima are significant, but not extreme. However if there were to be any sort of addition to the already fucked situation, such as another earthquake, we would start to see more extreme levels in our food, and therefore in us.
Lydia Darthall - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 23:13:58 EST ID:HrJgi3Bo No.74964 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Infowars is retarded.
Ebenezer Buzzforth - Mon, 07 Jul 2014 01:55:32 EST ID:PcMJhcpa No.74965 Ignore Report Quick Reply
yes buy kilograms of potassium iodide. totes even. bathe in it you will be fine always put it in your wasabi. makes the sting even better.
Wanderer - Mon, 07 Jul 2014 22:39:36 EST ID:4iqkZE7i No.74969 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ok guys, I really appreciate the detailed answers. I thought that radioactive Cs gets absorbed into your body permanently thus it is exponentially worse than the same dose of potassium. My understanding is that is because the potassium is excreted and replaced with new K fairly quickly. I am very pro nuclear, it is obviously the superior choice of power available to us at this time, I just don't want my nuts to fall off or anything.

Also just FYI iodine only protects your thyroid, if you load up on non radioactive iodine it will prevent radioactive isotopes of iodine from being absorbed into your thyroid and giving you some nasty thyroid cancer. It will do nothing for other elements/isotopes. If you guys are interested I have some documents on best practices for keeping safe in the event of nuclear disasters or war.

Possible research chem idea. by Isabella Pittgold - Fri, 27 Jun 2014 01:27:46 EST ID:tGmPgLlc No.74885 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1403846866085.png -(20325 B, 663x648) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 20325
Look at the molecules for 3-meo-pcp, MXE, and Methoxphenidine. Now look at what I just drew.

Anyone think that the Arylethylcyclohexylamine series might be possible?

I would ask this over at /dis/ but i wanted to get a chemist's perspective to see if this molecule would be possible to synthesize.
4 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Charles Smallshit - Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:46:14 EST ID:0uSD16gc No.74906 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>cyclohexane vs benzene

absolutely massive differences in the shape of this molecule, as well as its effects on the CNS. Honestly it probably wouldn't do shit OP
Esther Blecklehotch - Tue, 01 Jul 2014 20:28:34 EST ID:kknslnPv No.74920 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Do you know anything about SAR?
Charlotte Hellerson - Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:17:25 EST ID:c7PD3ms3 No.74921 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Structure-activity relationship? I know a bit. I mean, I've read shulgin's and Nichol's papers and have a chemistry background. I don't know anything about NMDA receptors which would be helpful for OP's idea.

Charles is right that as drawn, it probably wouldn't do shit. Maybe that was just a mistake. But the meta methoxy methoxyphenidine substitution seems so obvious, someone might've already done it.

I only looked at the wiki for the drugs OP mentioned - 3-meo-PCP, MXE and methoxyphenidine, and noticed the different methoxy placements. So changing the placement of the group might help with a SAR analysis.

I could try to actually find literature on the subject (NMDA antagonists and SAR) if people are interested.
Edwin Crezzlestere - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 14:11:31 EST ID:DtVV8fEu No.74954 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Please do, especially for SAR. I think it's one of the most fascinating questions of biochemistry.
Clara Passledidge - Mon, 07 Jul 2014 03:54:21 EST ID:kknslnPv No.74967 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Oh I thought you were OP. I assumed OP didn't know anything about SAR and was just playing around with random chemicals thinking if chemical A has this feature and chemical B has this other feature then chemical A + feature B will have effects like chemical A and B. In other words a line of reasoning that completely ignores SAR.

Linus Pauling Textbooks by Barnaby Cracklelock - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 21:56:19 EST ID:ZrvWTqdG No.74963 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404698179869.jpg -(57152 B, 640x374) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 57152
Do any of you have experience with his text books? I'm interested in General Chemistry.

Or, do you recommend another book highly?
Thomas Brullyshit - Tue, 08 Jul 2014 22:05:21 EST ID:gzUPhZ+W No.74976 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Amazon reviews would probably be more helpful for this. I don't think my text was the best so I wouldn't suggest anything.

CHEM QUESTIONS by Whitey Wevingpone - Sat, 05 Jul 2014 22:19:51 EST ID:J3kxIXH5 No.74942 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404613191406.jpg -(1952421 B, 2000x1333) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1952421
I'm working on the chapter on solutions for Chem 2, and I have a question about finding the total number of moles for formulas used to find molality, mole fraction, molarity etc.

Basically my question is that many of these problems based on solutions ask you to find the "total moles of solution" in order to work out the answer. What confuses me is that a solution contains more than one compound, so when they ask for total moles do they mean the combined number of moles of both solvent and solute? and how would you calculate that if so? Moles of each compound have very different values so I don't know how you'd combine them. Thanks!
Martha Desslebanks - Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:07:41 EST ID:c7PD3ms3 No.74943 Ignore Report Quick Reply
moles of solvent >>>> moles of solute. So you could just write the moles of solvent in most cases.

However, they're PROBABLY asking you for the total moles of solute in the solution. In that case, you simply multiply molarity (moles per liter) times the volume (liters), to get the total number of moles of solute.
>Moles of each compound have very different values
Review significant figures, and ask the professor or other students questions. Hang in there, chemistry gets more interesting I swear.
Whitey Wevingpone - Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:36:26 EST ID:J3kxIXH5 No.74945 Ignore Report Quick Reply
it was total moles of solution so like moles h2o + moles ethanol or whatever.
thank you my man I appreciate the response. I used to want to be a chemist just to make drugs, and kind of gave up after Chem 1 for a year. now that I've jumped back into things with a fresh perpective all this "boring" stuff about thermochemistry etc from Chem 2 is super interesting because when you think about it with a clear mind it's how everything in front of you works and is formed. That's not boring at all! It's fucking amazing
Martha Desslebanks - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 02:03:56 EST ID:c7PD3ms3 No.74948 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>it was total moles of solution so like moles h2o + moles ethanol or whatever
Oh, OK. So you probably have to convert mass to moles. Then, it's simple addition and significant figures.
>That's not boring at all! It's fucking amazing
Very true. Especially with thermodynamics. That's actually very, deep, powerful science right there.
Simon Niggerlock - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 19:44:49 EST ID:8tQGzRP2 No.74961 Ignore Report Quick Reply
what makes it so deep and powerful? just all the functions in the world that are governed by heat or what mang?
Wesley Gammerfuck - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 21:26:47 EST ID:c7PD3ms3 No.74962 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>just all the functions in the world that are governed by heat or what mang?
Pretty much. I mean, heat isn't that "deep", since it's just molecules in motion. But thermo. gives us a better understanding of energy, entropy, why reactions happen, why some reactions don't happen, and so on.

It's like Newton's laws of motion. It's a very useful tool. Of course when the scale gets small enough, thermo. no longer applies, just like newton's laws no longer apply. They're still incredibly useful. at describing how the world works.

It's extremely useful for explaining every day phenomena - how engines work, how fridges work, why sweat cools, why greenhouse gases can heat up the earth... The list goes on. It's also very useful for a practicing chemist.

How to science? by Doc Venture - Thu, 03 Jul 2014 07:30:19 EST ID:hqvQgbkd No.74923 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404387019035.png -(128158 B, 250x289) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 128158
So I'm looking to get into university next year and am interested in doing a degree in an area of science.

If my goal is to say, find a cure for cancer, how would I go about doing this? Or something related to genetics like genetic engineering.

There aren't any jobs in the paper saying 'Looking for scientist to cure cancer'. So how does one go about doing/trying such a thing?

I gather its a thing you have to spend a lot of time researching, whereas most science jobs are for positions that you're 'doing' stuff (and not researching)(you're a lab monkey).

So I guess, after you've finished a degree in a specific area and you want to do research your choices are pretty limited to
1) Do your honours/Phd
2) Do your own research (expansive and not practical)
3) ?

I know/think drug companies also do research into finding new drugs, but I'm guess they only hire really smart people that are like former professors and stuff.

Caroline Lightlock - Thu, 03 Jul 2014 13:05:20 EST ID:72wOh3Tw No.74924 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Life sciences is what you want to go in to if you want to 'find a cure for cancer'. This is some general biology and chemistry. Then you can specialize in your master and PhD studies for diseases etc.

Also there is no one 'cure for cancer'. Maybe you should first find out what cancer even is.
Archie Dongerwater - Thu, 03 Jul 2014 14:15:26 EST ID:4rYEYe6Q No.74925 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1- go to a school with a strong research program and life sciences. Biology/biochem/bioengineering/chemistry are all good choices. Do what you find the most enjoyable.

2- get in on the research program as soon as possible. Typically this is by Junior year, professors will typically reach out to their brightest students for a position. This is also done a lot by socializing, getting to know professors.

Getting into research as early as possible, even if you are just doing shitty work in a lab, is pretty important for honors programs. But, since you arent even in university yet, just focus on getting into a school with research opportunities.
Nicholas Blythewill - Thu, 03 Jul 2014 21:18:38 EST ID:PcMJhcpa No.74926 Ignore Report Quick Reply
RHodium Chemistry Archive, Read read read read google wikipedia.
Fanny Goshbury - Fri, 04 Jul 2014 12:33:17 EST ID:0uSD16gc No.74927 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I have a degree in Biotechnology. I'm on the website LinkedIn. and I get alerts about "Looking for Research Scientist for cancer drug discovery" all the time. But it really depends on where you live. I am in Massachusetts, where the biotech industry happens to be huge, so I get lots of alerts for jobs in the area.

I'd apply to these jobs but I am currently in the middle of a Master's Thesis with plans to go on for a Phd. And I want to focus on cellular neuroscience and neurodegeneration/regeneration.
Fanny Goshbury - Fri, 04 Jul 2014 13:02:38 EST ID:0uSD16gc No.74929 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ill try to answer your questions better:
First off. Get a work study position in the labs at your department. This is a great way to get your foot in the door
Secondly, find a lab you want to work in. Learn that professor's research, ask him questions, show adament interest in what he studies. They want to take on students, usually graduate students but sometimes undergraduates. In all honesty its cheap labor. But pay attention in lab classes as well. Less they have to train you on. A lot of really really smart people don't make it in research is because they can't take that knowledge and translate it into actual research. But yea if you really want to get into this sort of research graduate school is the way to go

Chem 2 by Walter Worthinghood - Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:50:08 EST ID:8tQGzRP2 No.74904 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1403985008433.png -(127370 B, 220x299) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 127370
Hi I posted this thread in /b/ it got many replies and we were having a good discussion not related to chem homework but then Jericho locked it before I could get an answer because he works at a gas station.

I know we have a science board but I need a faster answer than in 3 days from now. To make this on topic with /b/ board so it doesn't get locked for not conforming to nazi standards, thsi thread doubles as discussion of the hypothetical scenario of nazis made of weed invading the earth.

anyways onto the important thing
QUESTION: 3. The overall chemical equation resulting from the sum of the following three steps is

2C(s) + 2H2O(g) > 2CO(g) + 2H2(g)
CO(g) + H2O(g) > CO2(g) + H2(g)
CO(g) + 3H2(g) > CH4(g) + H2O(g)

I get that you're supposed to cancel the compounds out, but do you cancel the end of 1st equation with the beginning of the second or do you cancel first side with first side and second with second.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Clara Gudgewill - Sun, 29 Jun 2014 23:13:40 EST ID:0uSD16gc No.74913 Ignore Report Quick Reply
yea I get the feeling that the answer he gave is incorrect as well. I am not a chemist by any means, but I do cell biology and use chemistry alot, so I am not speaking out of my ass
Shit Chummleville - Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:08:59 EST ID:8tQGzRP2 No.74916 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Guys I know now the answer is incorrect. It's the one my teacher provided for the study guide haha so what is the actual proper thing? replace 5h2 with 3co?
Eugene Bricklestock - Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:49:37 EST ID:XD/Rd2uj No.74917 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1404179377248.jpg -(126889 B, 960x540) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 126889

2C(s) +2H2O(g) -->CO2 +CH4

You do this by considering all the reactants, and all the products, and collecting them as you would variables in equations, and then cancelling one side out this the other. For example, in this question you have 3 H2Os on the reactant side, and one H2O on the product side, which equals out to the net consumption of only 2H2O in the sum of the equations.
Not sure if I explained it well, but I recommend checking out some khan academy videos on stoichiometry, and balancing equations
Shit Chummleville - Tue, 01 Jul 2014 02:21:45 EST ID:8tQGzRP2 No.74918 Ignore Report Quick Reply
THANK YOU I GOT IT. it's too late I already took a test on it but I feel like I got a a C or B and you fuckin explained it to me right!! thanks!!!!! you are the genius my mang
Fanny Goshbury - Fri, 04 Jul 2014 12:37:47 EST ID:0uSD16gc No.74928 Ignore Report Quick Reply
any time bro

DXM Extracting failure? by George Drungerhan - Tue, 01 Jul 2014 16:10:20 EST ID:c9/TyO39 No.74919 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404245420494.jpg -(96453 B, 608x412) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 96453
hey /chem/, /dis/ here,
I'm sort of the braindead type and was mixing alcohol benalyn regular strength it contains:

(Medicinal Ingredients: Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide (15 mg/5mL).

Non-Medicinal Ingredients: Artificial sweetener enhancer, citric acid, D&C Red No. 33, FD&C Red No. 40, flavour, glycerin, menthol, polyethylene glycol, sodium benzoate, sodium carboxymethycellulose, sodium citrate, sodium cyclamate, sorbitol, water. Caloric content: 6.7 Kcal/5 mL.)

I want to ideally get the DXM out but by mixing the 99% isopropyl with it i just have a very odd ball of white sludge in a jar of alcohol/cough syrup

what could the jello/sludge ball be?
Charlotte Hellerson - Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:25:39 EST ID:c7PD3ms3 No.74922 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Why are you trying to extract DXM when it looks like the only active ingredient?

Are you basing this off of what someone else said? If DXM is soluble in iso., and the point is to get DXM in the alcohol, then it sounds like most of the other shit (non medicinal ingredients) is in the sludge. If you're following instructions, what do the instructions say?
Albert Crenkinlitch - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 09:51:29 EST ID:GBHOrOti No.74952 Ignore Report Quick Reply
google: Agent Lemon extraction
it works better. you can also do a CWE if it's Delsym brand.

science by Nathaniel Bammlefuck - Fri, 27 Jun 2014 05:48:57 EST ID:/RojIEH7 No.74889 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1403862537345.jpg -(136924 B, 1038x769) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 136924
red: antenna
blue: feedline
green: ground

in the event of lightning striking the antenna, would there be any damage to the radio (inside the house connected by the feedline) if the line was grounded?
8 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
William Chorringman - Sat, 28 Jun 2014 22:29:20 EST ID:oDrwY94G No.74909 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You want something like this:

it is a sparkgap that shunts all voltage over a certain amount to ground. The less power you transmit the smaller the gap can be and the smaller the gap the better your delicate receiver will be protected. So higher power rating isnt better in this case. If youre only receiving find one designed for that. I only picked this one to link because I'm a ham and knew where to find it quick. This one is rated for 200W for example.
Edward Nabbersack - Sun, 29 Jun 2014 18:57:11 EST ID:PcMJhcpa No.74910 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Cool I wonder if you could use lightning, areas that get lots of electricity storms to power batteries.... cuz thats a lot of juice at once.. collect it all and just "Disperse" it... why not use it to charge a battery? How much would one typical strike of lightning put out? enough for one battery? or 10 maybe?. that would be sweet.
Martin Crepperworth - Sun, 29 Jun 2014 20:24:19 EST ID:c7PD3ms3 No.74911 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> How much would one typical strike of lightning put out?
It's a huge amount of energy, but it's in such a short amount of time that's it's extremely hard to capture all the energy at once. Also, even if you're in an area with lots of lighting, it's still hard to get consistent strikes. If you're lucky, maybe you could get a strike a month during the peak.

People have thought of it before, but I think they always conclude: not feasible. It's not that crazy though. Definitely not worth it for a single lightning rod.
Eugene Borringkadge - Mon, 30 Jun 2014 01:31:01 EST ID:PcMJhcpa No.74914 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I just wonder if you COULD capture it how much would you get?

Like you said its a rare chance... but if one hit and you had the tech to capture It I'd love to do some research like that. and I dont know a fucking thing electricity OBVS
Martin Crepperworth - Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:42:19 EST ID:c7PD3ms3 No.74915 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is neat:
>A relatively easy method is the direct harvesting of atmospheric charge before it turns into lightning. At a small scale, it was done a few times with the most known example being Benjamin Franklin's kite experiment.

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