AnonAccount: What is it, and what does it do? - Q&A Thread
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
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
Subject
Comment
[*]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
File

Sandwich


Course Requirements by Fucking Sackledane - Mon, 21 Jul 2014 02:26:13 EST ID:o7vroPl0 No.75039 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1405923973394.jpg -(107570 B, 800x1600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 107570
So I would very much like to study for a Pharmacognosy MSc, to do that I require a Pharmacology BSc, and to get into that I require Biology, Chemistry, and one other "Pure Science" A-level. I am competent at Mathematics, but I would prefer not to do it at A-Level.

What other pure science subject could I do that would blend with and bolster my own understanding of Biology and Chemistry?

Pic unrelated, i just find trollscience amusing.
>>
Fanny Fanwill - Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:39:52 EST ID:+0Ci6TLP No.75040 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>75039
Physics. A good understanding of chemistry helps with learning biology, a good understanding of physics helps with learning chemistry, and a good understanding of maths (and logic) helps with learning physics.
The advanced chemistry classes are all extremely heavy of physics concepts and math (especially statistics).
>>
Cornelius Dinnerville - Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:39:46 EST ID:eFMytRW7 No.75041 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>75040

Hey, great answer.

I definitely recommend doing Physics OP. It's a bit lighter than mathematics, and a whole lot more fun. Pay particular attention to concepts involving energy transfer, work and heat, kinematics equations where energy comes into play, everything you learn in electrostatics, nuclear structure and energy. In fact, the more I think on it, the more I realise my A level physics classes are pretty much the basis of my current mid-bachelor chem degree. You owe it to yourself to take phys.
>>
Samuel Wacklechone - Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:13:43 EST ID:uGD5aNS6 No.75042 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Why not take another higher level Biology or Chemistry class than the Intro classes you are probably taking. Probably Biology since you said you would rather steer away from math. Something along the Biotech line of Bio since you are a pharm major, something like Recombinant Protein production, molecular biology, or cell culture since these are INCREDIBLY useful tools in Pharm. Cell culture is great because if you have those techniques under your belt you look great to those companies, since you can test drugs you discover on cells and test their effects. Just my opinion though
>>
Esther Lightfield - Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:35:09 EST ID:o7vroPl0 No.75064 Ignore Report Quick Reply
OP here, thank you all for the valuable input

>>75040
>>75041
I have thought about doing physics as my last subject, and while it seems to be extremely useful in regards to the overlap of the subjects and understanding the basis and nature of those overlaps, I don't think having two meaty subjects on my plate would be a good idea. And that is not to say that other subjects are not meaty, it is just I feel that the subject matter of physics is rather dense to someone who is not of a mathematical mindset. I would however return at a later date to physics, as it opens an interesting avenue of knowledge.

>>75042
I had this same idea: do whichever courses at college, and then ask them if they would be willing to be liasons with a long distance course in a subject with a greater overlap to both Pharmacognosy/Pharmacology


Can we talk about mood enhancing chemicals in the body? by Nigger Suzzledock - Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:33:01 EST ID:z+P+JHss No.74528 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1397532781824.jpg -(147071 B, 414x414) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 147071
I think it's fascinating you can essentially change a personality simply by introducing a chemical that stimulates a reaction in your body., albeit a cocktail of hormones and individual thought patterns greatly change the effect, and make it difficult to form objectivity regarding the results of any form of personality change undergone by the introduction of such a chemical, being as how personality is vastly dependent upon the individual.

For instance Testosterone has been shown to increase cognitive skills in men.
Estrogen has been shown to serve as an SSRI in women.
Oxytocin provides better responses to unpredictable events in Women., (making them think clearer)

There are tons of chemicals in the mind that affect mood and personality, these hormones are the three that seemed to be the strongest. What's /chem/'s take on this? What chemicals contribute the most to the mechanics of personality?
19 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Archie Dumblehet - Wed, 23 Jul 2014 01:01:05 EST ID:uGD5aNS6 No.75055 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>75050
Honestly man I haven't really heard of that theory until you just mentioned it. I have heard the idea that quantum states do have an effect on biological systems, but I am not a particle physicist, and am not going to pretend to be.
But having very briefly looked over some information on their theories, I take it that the idea is using changes in the quantum states of certain proteins as a means of computation, specifically in neuronal circuits. I can say that it doesn't sound ludicrously far-fetched. One of the projects I am helping out on involves the use of extracted fetal neurons and special dishes to move robot arms. Army funded shit.
I am a new Phd student and most of what I have done is related to model generation for different Tau isoforms in relevance to Alzheimer's disease. So far things have been going swimmingly. If you could provide an explanation of their theory that would be rad. Being that Tau is a microtubule assosiation protein and we generate GFP tagged Tau, I do a lot of measurements on MT/Tau colocalization and have lots of visual experience with microtubules and axon transport kinetics (which heavily involve MTs)
>>
Phineas Niggerdock - Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:16:13 EST ID:98rbxNaM No.75057 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>75050
>what your opinion on Hammeroff-Penrose's theory of microtubules and quantum coherence.
They're full of shit. According to Hoffstadter, Penrose completely misinterprets of Godel's incompleteness theorems. From there, you can go to his ignoring of all current neurobio research (his theories pay ZERO mind to research in awareness). Then finish with their lack of a mechanism for WHY quantum coherence would give rise to consciousness.

The theory is complete bullshit. It's hand waving at best. If quantum coherence plays a role in consciousness, it is only insomuch as it plays a role in neural networks' computations. Seriously, fuck Penrose for this massive blemish on an otherwise stellar career.

Lastly, watch "What The Bleep do We Know?" It's an alright movie, but the majority is pseudoscience new age bullshit. Hammeroff is the anesthesiologist who worked with penrose, and he plays a big role in the movie. It's misinterpretations of quantum physics.

Hammeroff misunderstands quantum physics and Penrose misunderstands biology. They both misunderstand computation theory (and the incompleteness theorems).
>>
Edwin Goodhood - Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:26:58 EST ID:mj+5dAm9 No.75059 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>75057
This is basically my opinion. I've always been bothered by the horrible argument of penrose's based on godel's incompleteness theorem. It's so sloppy and Ive met and spoken with Hammeroff and he is quite a dismissive man towards fundamental disagreements with his and Penrose's work. It's completely frustrating.
However, that being said, it is certainly an interesting theory and microtubules are fascinating structures. There is *some evidence of Bose-Einstein condensates within neurons displaying quantum coherence and at relatively high levels. Now, I'm no physicist but I know a good deal of them working and thinking about this problem and those who are in the "quantum consciousness camp" (i.e. Stapp, Hameroff, Penrose,) follow a von Neumann interpretation of QM in which consciousness ITSELF is literally an essential ingredient in a theory of physics. In the brain, it's claimed, consciousness (note: this is a nonphysical consciousness, and has a whole host of arguments against it imo) causes the collapse of the superposition of quantum states within neurons and this happens on the scale of microtubules in the time range of megahertz. Hence, phenomenal consciousness is supposed to be the constant, though *discrete* succession of collapses occuring within networked neurons.
The theory is interesting but it relies on a metaphysical assumption that consciousness can be regarded as nonphysical interacting at the level of qubits and it also assumes a specific interpretation of quantum mechanics following von Neumann which is widely but not universally accepted. There is, at this point, no privileged interpretation of QM and anyone who claims otherwise is lying. The theory inevitably collapses into pan-proto-psychism, IMHO but i know some physicists deny this (I think theyre wrong)
>>
William Nullylat - Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:26:29 EST ID:OZEn0kJG No.75060 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>75059
I don't know about inevitably collapse into panpsychism. Doesn't it really come down to which side of the Copenhagen interpretation you're on? And on the topic of quantum effects affecting cellular processes, many of the papers claiming to observe it happening in room temperature, decohering noise out the wing wang, normal situations usually have some questionable science behind them. Quantum chemistry is still a developing field but correct me if I'm wrong in saying entanglement isn't really observed in day to day macromolecular situations.

This is the knunckledraging engineer from before, sorry if I'm tragically misinformed.
>>
Hugh Gemblehall - Thu, 24 Jul 2014 23:44:54 EST ID:uGD5aNS6 No.75063 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>75059
Microtubules are so fucking awesome, especially when you can visualize them with fluorescence and a tagged anti-body, or in the case of my research, GFP tagged Tau protein.
IDK, maybe there is some legitimacy here, not familiar enough with the theory to lend any real weight tho. But I do know that neurons heavily rely on Neurofilaments for action potential transmission. Not just in a structural way, as neurofilaments have some undefined role in the propagation and continuation of the signal. Could they be involved somehow?

>consciousness ITSELF is literally an essential ingredient in a theory of physics
Honestly I agree with this statement wholeheartedly, but from a more philosophical standpoint than a hard-science one. But related to multiverse theory in physics:
I believe that up until the advent of consciousness, I believe that our universe could have only existed in 1 state, as the state of every bit of matter was determined by adherence of those molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, waves, or whatever else, to the laws of physics. There could be no change or deviation from this because they had only the interaction of the 4 fundamental forces to dictate what they did or where they went. However, consciousness generates choice, and from choice, we have the ability to manipulate things, while of course still abiding by physical laws and constants. But the idea of manipulation, intervention, and changing of systems that we create from our consciousness and carry out through our bodies generates the splits in time-lines that cause the arising of alternate universes. Consider a ball on the ground. Left there, never to be touched, it can only go wherever physical forces and thermodynamics dictates it can go. However, by intervening on that system and say picking the ball up or moving it, you alter the system and place the ball somewhere else. If you never touch it, it is in state A, if you intervene, state B. Both theoretically can exist however without Human intervention would state B have ever arisen?
And as human technology and knowledge increases, I personally believe the the gap between these deviations in time-lines gets greater, as we gain a greater ability to rea…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Perpetual motion by William Pockford - Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:42:56 EST ID:LXTYtidL No.75052 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1406079776189.jpg -(8049 B, 215x234) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 8049
If the evidence contradicts theory, then theory is wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYtfq6qRrh8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V70w3cxDJIM
>>
Frederick Dollyshit - Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:46:20 EST ID:WH/r4GvV No.75053 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>75052
or evidence is misinterpreted.
>>
Phineas Niggerdock - Wed, 23 Jul 2014 01:52:28 EST ID:98rbxNaM No.75056 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>75053
Or the evidence is fabricated. Look at OP's vids, they're pretty funny.


DNA by Emma Dramblestock - Fri, 04 Jul 2014 22:58:25 EST ID:hxG48Hzq No.74931 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404529105688.jpg -(1218970 B, 1680x1050) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1218970
How is DNA a self-replicating molecule?
How does it "know" to operate the way it does?
17 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Wesley Bellerkidge - Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:41:44 EST ID:Cq/avpfb No.75027 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>74980
>>74980
" but what shapes the nervous system overall is how YOU form your brain, which then forms you."

This statement is an exaggeration and is at odd with gene knock-out studies or developmental neurobiology; consider that the critical periods for most neurobiological processes are occuring before the individual has developmentally achieved much if any agency.

"There is a disconnect between Genetics and Environment."

This is an old prejudice reflected by the false dichotomy of 'nature vs nurture'. We know that genomes and the environment interact with each other.

The "disconnect" between environment and genetics is not solely or accurately reduced to or under the purview of psychology; it's multi-modal (sociologic, epigenetic, information theoretic, literary, semiotic, cultural so on and so on
>>
Samuel Wacklechone - Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:41:24 EST ID:uGD5aNS6 No.75044 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1406007684823.jpg -(41129 B, 960x718) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 41129
>>75027
>The "disconnect" between environment and genetics is not solely or accurately reduced to or under the purview of psychology
I get that, the point I was trying to make is that its not solely based on genetics either.
Certain neurons, when undergoing their axonal pathfind states, express certain signalling molecules that tell other neurons of a different type "Don't innervate me", while others it attracts that innervation. There are boatloads of neurotrophic factors and the like that dictate this attraction/repulsion, and the process is not entirely understood yet.

>consider that the critical periods for most neurobiological processes are occuring before the individual has developmentally achieved much if any agency
Honestly I disagree. I do know that there is a sort of trimming phase of neurological developement. Before that, the brain is a mess, and there are way too many neurons and synaptic connects than one could ever need. The brain induces a massive programmed cell death and trims down extensively.

But I think you are overlooking a key concept in neurobiology. The idea that "neurons that fire together wire together." The more a neuron APs and activates its synapse, the more stronger that connection becomes and the more sensitive it becomes to that stimuli. Its the idea of AMPA channels or NMDA receptors, which will upregulate the neuron's response to upstream neurotransmitter release. Which is what certain forms of memory and learning come from. A use it or lose it ideology, and where associative memory comes from. There are certain parts of the brain like the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus that remain active in its replication and developement throughout life, and those areas allow new memories and associations to form, actually they are incredibly important and one of the first areas to go in Alzheimer's. Its my personal belief that environment is critically important to shaping the nervous system, and that genetics is less important (not at all underplaying it, obviously important, just less so than environment). But assuming genetics are not an issue, we all have the same proteins, signalling molecules, and the lik…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Fuck Sonnerchog - Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:22:50 EST ID:+0Ci6TLP No.75046 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>74931
Here is how I see it. You step on a sharp rock and the rock cuts you. In order to cut you, the rock had to be sharp. How did the rock "know" to be sharp? It didn't. It just happened to undergo enough random events to eventually be sharp and eventually be stepped on.
This epiphany also took the mystery out of prions and viruses for me. They're not alive, but they're alive and replicate? Under what impetus, with what animus? It's just a strange chain of chemicals that does a strange thing. Except, not so strange. Crystals are self-replicating, just like DNA, if the conditions are right.
>>
Fuck Sonnerchog - Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:28:22 EST ID:+0Ci6TLP No.75047 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>75046
They're alive, but not alive and they replicate*.
Because prions and viruses don't meet the criteria to be considered life. Think of a virus as a piece of paper that says "please write these words on other pieces of paper".
>>
Reuben Fillyridge - Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:58:40 EST ID:WH/r4GvV No.75049 Ignore Report Quick Reply
this is a surprisingly good thread. I dont think most scientists say DNA is "self" replicating. It's part of a complex system which is self-creating, or autopoetic. THe above points about DNA and enzymes are right on


Dinner For 1 by George Chockletare - Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:17:58 EST ID:5fAfNtgM No.75048 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1406056678322.jpg -(83175 B, 720x501) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 83175
I have been researching the correct way to cook for myself and I have it all figured out except for one issue: Most of my pills contain PSE Sulfate instead of PSE HCl. I've read that the sulfate salt gums up in solvents. Will this hinder my reaction? If so, how can I freebase the PSE without losing any product?


DIY neuropharmacology experiments by Celty !Iv58NJh.IE - Wed, 04 Jun 2014 20:39:37 EST ID:e+OyfP3Z No.74787 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1401928777929.png -(192308 B, 420x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 192308
So I'm going to get some mice and some drugs. Then I'm going to run experiments on them. Can you guys suggest some neuroscience experiments/tests that are done on mice? Intuitively I just want to create a maze (a fractal maze) and then time how long it takes the mice to get to the food under the influence of different drugs, with control mice of course.

Right now I'm thinking mice on DPH, and using the maze test. DPH definitely causes spacial distortions and a general lapse in cognition. I already predict that the mice on DPH will take a ridiculous amount of time to finish the maze if at all, but I want experimental evidence. Then I'll take that evidence and make assumptions as to how DPH effects the brain. I'm going to also use long term mice, to check the permanent mental deterioration if any, of the mice who are exposed to DPH regularly. I'm going to focus on hallucinogens and amphetamines.

More importantly though, how the fuck do you even get the drug into the mouses body? Do I have to inject the mouse? Where do you inject on a mouse that's actually gonna get the drug to their system and wont kill it?
14 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Wesley Bellerkidge - Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:01:28 EST ID:Cq/avpfb No.75029 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>More importantly though, how the fuck do you even get the drug into the mouses body? Do I have to inject the mouse? Where do you inject on a mouse that's actually gonna get the drug to their system and wont kill it?


Jesus fucking christ dude you are not trained enough or knowledgeable enough to do this so don't. It's unethical and callous.

>Right now I'm thinking mice on DPH, and using the maze test. DPH definitely causes spacial distortions and a general lapse in cognition. I already predict that the mice on DPH will take a ridiculous amount of time to finish the maze if at all, but I want experimental evidence. Then I'll take that evidence and make assumptions as to how DPH effects the brain. I'm going to also use long term mice, to check the permanent mental deterioration if any, of the mice who are exposed to DPH regularly.

If you actually knew as much about neuropharmacology as you claim then you could already make some substantiated assumptions about the mechanisms of DPH action and predict their effects on locomotion and spatial thinking. Oh, and are you even aware of the different injection sites and which drugs to administer them at what dosage over what time course? What's the functional difference between say, an intraperitoneal or intramuscular injection? If you don't understand the pharmacological physiology then those drugs are poisons in your hand.

Do you even know how to fucking handle a mouse? Let alone inject it? Let alone provide the daily handling, care and environmental management that goes into sustaining lab rat colonies?

You know, the scientists who do this (myself included) go through extensive supervised training in theory, technique and ethics. You're not contributing to 'science' or anything greater than the needless suffering of your model animals. These are not the type of experiments you can go 'guerilla' with.

What happens if a rat starts to overdose? Do you know enough about the pharmacology of what's going on to administer an antidote? You wouldn't even have //access// to the antidotes bro. How could you even determine the doses of your treatments considering they probably come off the street?
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Wesley Bellerkidge - Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:04:30 EST ID:Cq/avpfb No.75030 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>75029

If you're really keen on DIY neuro then do something like grab a Spikebox from https://backyardbrains.com/ and play with a dead cockroach or something. At least it's not living, or a vertebrate.

If that doesn't appeal to you, because you have no interest in neurophysiology, then go away because you have no business with pharmacology (or experiments on LIVE, SENTIENT SUBJECTS).
>>
Wesley Bellerkidge - Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:12:53 EST ID:Cq/avpfb No.75031 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>74843
"For instance, in the case of the subject of this thread, the rats or mice or whatever should be handled as living being with some regard and respect to their wellbeing"

No I think the importance of the ethical treatment of animals is being entirely understated in this thread (including your comment). I understand regulations and expectations vary across the world, but there is no excuse for the admonishible espousal of 'amateur science' when it comes to OP's suggestion.

At least in Australia, the animal ethics regulations are extremely strict (they dictate a lot of what goes on in a lab) but also researchers who work in neuropharmacology (a field I'm involved in) are very conscientious of the animal subjects. It goes way, way beyond 'handling as a living being with some regard and respect to their wellbeing' - their wellbeing is very important both experimentally (e.g. if the animal is stressed out by environmental stimuli or pain or mistreatment then you can say by-by to the validity of your results because the stress reactions could be very confounding) - legally (if you cause an animal to experience needless suffering, either in research or education/teaching - you face $50,000 fine or 8 years imprisonment - so if OP was doing this in any kind of institution he would be sacked, shunned, career over and in prison).

The reason why animal experimentation is justifiable, when it is justifiable, becomes a matter of ethical argument. I can see no reason why the production of unnecessary harm to OP's rats has ANY redeeming consequences (this is just for OP's own onanism).
>>
Cornelius Dublingfield - Sat, 19 Jul 2014 12:45:55 EST ID:oDrwY94G No.75033 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Are there any books on the treatment of lab animals or mice in particular. Id like to know how to inject a mouse without buying one and poking around with a needle.
>>
Henry Drammlehall - Sat, 19 Jul 2014 14:08:26 EST ID:PNc9m+qy No.75034 Ignore Report Quick Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QPiF4-iu6g

do it


Sources and References by Hugh Bishchane - Mon, 14 Jul 2014 01:38:39 EST ID:NyBW95X8 No.75011 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1405316319798.gif -(2399 B, 404x196) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2399
Saw something like this on Zoklet, I figured why not
People request papers, people with access post the papers. If anyone has access to any of these I'd be deeply appreciative.
1: Narasimhachari N, Heller B, Spaide J, Haskovec L, Fujimori M, Tabushi K,
Himwich HE. Urinary studies of schizophrenics and controls. Biol Psychiatry.
1971;3(1):9-20. PubMed PMI 4398666.

1: Tanimukai H, Ginther R, Spaide J, Bueno JR, Himwich HE. Psychotogenic
N,N-Dimethylated indole amines and behavior in schizophrenic patients. Recent Adv
Biol Psychiatry. 1968;10:6-15. Review. PubMed PMI 4873523.

1: Vogel WH, Evans BD. Structure-activity-relationships of certain hallucinogenic
substances based on brain levels. Life Sci. 1977 May 15;20(10):1629-35. Review.
PubMed PMI 69244.

1: Brush DE, Bird SB, Boyer EW. Monoamine oxidase inhibitor poisoning resulting
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Hugh Bishchane - Mon, 14 Jul 2014 02:33:03 EST ID:NyBW95X8 No.75012 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Guchhait RB. Biogenesis of 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine in human pineal
gland. J Neurochem. 1976 Jan;26(1):187-90. PubMed PMI 1255170.

anonfiles.com/file/7378f4e071fb858d3457289645bf163f

>Abraham HD, Aldridge AM, Gogia P. The psychopharmacology of hallucinogens.
Neuropsychopharmacology. 1996 Apr;14(4):285-98.
anonfiles.com/file/f50f71f6541da0564f6f0f2eb484bdd9

>J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2004;42(2):191-5.
anonfiles.com/file/08d941b5950bed31e5efef4845c57305


>Life Sci. 1977 May 15;20(10):1629-35
anonfiles.com/file/89a31738393784cefab5becc7aaf33a7
>>
Nigel Crecklebanks - Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:38:44 EST ID:c7PD3ms3 No.75013 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This site: http://libgen.org/scimag/index.php
Is fuckin wonderful. The best way to search is using the DOI (pubmed ID doesn't work).

Have you even tried google scholar yet? The third paper you requested has a PDF available.
>>
Wesley Bellerkidge - Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:31:37 EST ID:Cq/avpfb No.75025 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>75011
Assuming you're not a graduate who no longer has journal access; would you even be able to understand the papers?


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
>>75014
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
>>75015
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
>>75016
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
>>75017
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
>>75018
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
>>74984
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
>>75003
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
>>75001
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
>>75005
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
>>75005
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
>>75006
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/career.com/jobboard 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..

http://pastebin.com/7pbE20h2

Whats the best way to learn this stuff? I got 250mb of books like
TEXTBOOK OF INORGANIC CHEMISTRY
ZUBRICKS ORGANIC CHEM
Experiments in Inorganic Chemistry
HANDBOOK OF INORGANIC CHEM
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
>>74955
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
>>74966
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
>>74978
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

>>74975
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
>>74979
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
>>74979
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.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/food/recallsoutbreaksemergencies/emergencies/ucm253896.pdf
http://www.infowars.com/school-science-project-reveals-high-levels-of-fukushima-nuclear-radiation-in-grocery-store-seafood/

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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuw7Zq2fOHw .

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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2PxY-wOrI8&feature=share&list=PLQJW3WMsx1q3XqXOw5PuRrM0Zg8YDkRPL&index=6
>>
Ebenezer Buzzforth - Mon, 07 Jul 2014 01:55:32 EST ID:PcMJhcpa No.74965 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>74939
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
>>74940
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.

http://www.captaindaves.com/nuclear/nwss/index.html


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