hey /chem/ who are your favorite science guys? I like Edward Wilsonsorry if there's already a thread for this 11+ pages back
hey /chem/ who are your favorite science guys? I like Edward Wilson
sorry if there's already a thread for this 11+ pages back
>>36536
DICKS EVERYWHERE
Alexander Shulgin. Guy's a beast.
This will probably be a popular choice here, but it's got to be this man.
>>36553I got to speak with Dr. Shulgin at SXSW when they premiered a documentary about him called "Dirty Pictures". That man is fucking AWESOME!
is there any place in the universe where a coherent beam of light, like a laser is created by some natural means?
pulsars are the closest thing that i can think of... so not really
I'm goiing to get to ask this guy a question, Neil deGrasse Tyosn. What should I ask him? I want to make it serious/controversial.
who was fone
Cryogenics thread anyone?I've researched vitrification and it seems like it could be reversed pretty easily with some of the technology we'll likely be developing in the next few decades. You can pay with it for life insurance, so would you pay an extra $20 a month to gain a chance at immortality?And don't debate whether you would like immortality or not, this is just regarding the viability of cryogenics itself.
Cryogenics thread anyone?
I've researched vitrification and it seems like it could be reversed pretty easily with some of the technology we'll likely be developing in the next few decades. You can pay with it for life insurance, so would you pay an extra $20 a month to gain a chance at immortality?
And don't debate whether you would like immortality or not, this is just regarding the viability of cryogenics itself.
>>36523Very cool
>>36523
Very cool
Fuck this shit,better off concentrating on bio-fusion./neuro-biology. The fusion of technology with ourselves. THEN, we will live forever.
Also,If we’re looking at the highlights of human development,you have to look at the evolution of the organism...and then at the development of its interaction with the environment.Evolution of the organism will begin with the evolution of life...perceived through the hominid...coming to the evolution of mankind. Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Also,
If we’re looking at the highlights of human development,you have to look at the evolution of the organism...and then at the development of its interaction with the environment.Evolution of the organism will begin with the evolution of life...perceived through the hominid...coming to the evolution of mankind.
>>36568nice wall of text bro
>>36568Pick a colour...
>>36568
Pick a colour...
Hey, just curious about something. How would one perform a vacuum filtration sans the usual lab hood setup?
massive grav bong
>>36557this.... or buy an aspirator
>>36557>>36571
Hey /chem/, I have a dilemma. Refer to figure 1.1. As you can see, it is the temperature of a solution over time as it nears its freezing point. I did three such trials, and the freezing points are all pretty close. but what is that where it pauses at 20 degrees? It did that in two of the trials, but not in the third. Assuming that this is actually where the freezing point is, the freezing point would be above that of the pure substance freezing point (which was ~24 degrees). Obviously this can't be the case, as the impure substance must have a lower freezing point. So what is that plateau at 20 degrees??
I would say measuring a freezing point would depend on the size of the sample and the method used for freezing it. The plateau could be the transition state for the freezing of the entire solution. I assume that the temperature decreased at a steady rate, right? Well if the temperature decreases at a rate too fast for the entire solution to maintain a uniform temperature, then the entire sample would uniformly freeze at a temperature lower than its actual freezing point. Normally there is a range of temperature that a particular substance would undergo a transition state. Impurities in the sample could also cause a percentage of error in the freezing point, assuming you were using the freezing point test to determine whether or not you had the right substance.
I would say measuring a freezing point would depend on the size of the sample and the method used for freezing it. The plateau could be the transition state for the freezing of the entire solution. I assume that the temperature decreased at a steady rate, right? Well if the temperature decreases at a rate too fast for the entire solution to maintain a uniform temperature, then the entire sample would uniformly freeze at a temperature lower than its actual freezing point. Normally there is a range of temperature that a particular substance would undergo a transition state.
Impurities in the sample could also cause a percentage of error in the freezing point, assuming you were using the freezing point test to determine whether or not you had the right substance.
>>36526the sample was about 10.0g of solvent and 1.0g of solute in a test tube that was placed in an ice bath. the thermometer was suspended in the solution with the bulb near the bottom and the solution was mixed constantly as it cooled. thus a uniform temperature was assumed throughout the entire test tube. So really, all of the data i just gave is extraneous.an ideal graph of temperature over time for freezing of a solution should look like my picture here. notice how the cooling is uniform while it is in its entirely liquid state
>>36526
the sample was about 10.0g of solvent and 1.0g of solute in a test tube that was placed in an ice bath. the thermometer was suspended in the solution with the bulb near the bottom and the solution was mixed constantly as it cooled. thus a uniform temperature was assumed throughout the entire test tube. So really, all of the data i just gave is extraneous.
an ideal graph of temperature over time for freezing of a solution should look like my picture here. notice how the cooling is uniform while it is in its entirely liquid state
>>36537BUT my first graph looks more like this:right away i would assume that the larger plateau in my original chart is the freezing point except that i know the freezing point can't be that high. so why the plateau while it is still entirely liquid?? arggghhh
>>36537
BUT my first graph looks more like this:
right away i would assume that the larger plateau in my original chart is the freezing point except that i know the freezing point can't be that high. so why the plateau while it is still entirely liquid?? arggghhh
Sounds like a transition state, brosef.
>>36554its not. fairly positive. because that is near or above the pure solvent freezing point. because it is a solution, it must be below the pure solvent freezing point due to the colligative property freezing point depression. the Delta H sub f does not even begin to factor in until the substance is at its freezing point. doesn't make any sense.oh well. i will talk to my professor today
>>36554
its not. fairly positive. because that is near or above the pure solvent freezing point. because it is a solution, it must be below the pure solvent freezing point due to the colligative property freezing point depression. the Delta H sub f does not even begin to factor in until the substance is at its freezing point. doesn't make any sense.
oh well. i will talk to my professor today
I'm an evolutionist. My girlfriend is a creationist. She tells me it's stupid to believe we evolved from monkeys, but has no understanding of Darwinism or anything of that nature. I sneer and grow defensive when she challenges my viewpoints, but she gets upset because I actually have shit backing up my beliefs and can safely make fun of her creationist crap because I KNOW HOW IT WORKS AND WHAT IT'S ABOUT - When I tell her to just argue her point with reasons detailing WHY she believes what she does, instead of just getting pissed at me, she says she'd rather not argue and suggests we break up. What do I gather from all of this? Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I'm an evolutionist. My girlfriend is a creationist. She tells me it's stupid to believe we evolved from monkeys, but has no understanding of Darwinism or anything of that nature.
I sneer and grow defensive when she challenges my viewpoints, but she gets upset because I actually have shit backing up my beliefs and can safely make fun of her creationist crap because I KNOW HOW IT WORKS AND WHAT IT'S ABOUT - When I tell her to just argue her point with reasons detailing WHY she believes what she does, instead of just getting pissed at me, she says she'd rather not argue and suggests we break up.
What do I gather from all of this?
>>36547Also, quit calling yourself an evolutionist. Evolution is not a personal belief, it is a natural phenomenon that has been observed indirectly in fossil records and directly in laboratories and in the field (see: Italian wall lizard). There are no facts in science, only in mathematics. Science has theories and hypotheses, and that's all there is.
You picture has 6 different primates, but only 3 of them still exist today. If they were evolved forms of their predecessors, why aren't they still around today? Doesn't evolution imply superior survival skills? Why are there practically infinite numbers of "predecessor" species to humans but absolutely zero species still alive from the transitional phase?I'm not saying evolution is wrong, but I think you picture is a perfect example of why people are confused by the concept of evolution, and I am curious what /sci/ has to say.
You picture has 6 different primates, but only 3 of them still exist today. If they were evolved forms of their predecessors, why aren't they still around today? Doesn't evolution imply superior survival skills? Why are there practically infinite numbers of "predecessor" species to humans but absolutely zero species still alive from the transitional phase?
I'm not saying evolution is wrong, but I think you picture is a perfect example of why people are confused by the concept of evolution, and I am curious what /sci/ has to say.
I'd say "evolutionist" is a proper label for the OP. He is what one could call a gnostic atheist. He doesn't believe that currently accepted scientific theories are simply the most likely guesses we have (if we have faith in the philosophy backing the scientific method, which is a matter of faith). He instead knows that these things are true, in the same way religious fundamentalists know that the world came about as described in creation myth. These two types of people have more in common with each other than the OP has with genuine scientificly minded people, who would thus be considered agnostic atheists, seeing the issue of the divine as unknown or unknowable. People who are dogmatic about the science they've learned, even if they can present the evidence, are a detrement to science and to humanity, as they have completely missed the point of the scientific endevor. Science has more in common with gnostic thesim than either of the other two views, as at least those people base their spritual belief on experience, evidence, and (arguably flawed) reasoning. They don't use the scientific method, but they're closer to it than those who simply repeat what they've heard because they like it or find it comforting or some other such reason. Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I'd say "evolutionist" is a proper label for the OP. He is what one could call a gnostic atheist. He doesn't believe that currently accepted scientific theories are simply the most likely guesses we have (if we have faith in the philosophy backing the scientific method, which is a matter of faith). He instead knows that these things are true, in the same way religious fundamentalists know that the world came about as described in creation myth. These two types of people have more in common with each other than the OP has with genuine scientificly minded people, who would thus be considered agnostic atheists, seeing the issue of the divine as unknown or unknowable. People who are dogmatic about the science they've learned, even if they can present the evidence, are a detrement to science and to humanity, as they have completely missed the point of the scientific endevor. Science has more in common with gnostic thesim than either of the other two views, as at least those people base their spritual belief on experience, evidence, and (arguably flawed) reasoning. They don't use the scientific method, but they're closer to it than those who simply repeat what they've heard because they like it or find it comforting or some other such reason.
>>36559*agnostic theism near the end there
>>36551environments often change over time, and species that do not adapt properly will go extinct.The dodo for example went extinct when it was hunted out of existence because it was fucking stupid. On the other hand, a species might adapt perfectly to environmental change. Cats have great hunting abilities but they're easy to domesticate and now there is a cat in every other american home. That's not by chance, that's an adaptation that earned cats room in millions of homes all around the world. Unlike their other feline cousins, like the tiger and the cheetah, the domestic cat never has to worry about extinction as long as we're around. Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>36551
environments often change over time, and species that do not adapt properly will go extinct.
The dodo for example went extinct when it was hunted out of existence because it was fucking stupid. On the other hand, a species might adapt perfectly to environmental change. Cats have great hunting abilities but they're easy to domesticate and now there is a cat in every other american home. That's not by chance, that's an adaptation that earned cats room in millions of homes all around the world. Unlike their other feline cousins, like the tiger and the cheetah, the domestic cat never has to worry about extinction as long as we're around.
The poker rake ranks up there with the bookies. The poker sites take very little risks, and so do bookies. The players put money in the pot, and then the poker place takes a small cut of the action when certain chip levels (of the pot), and bookies charge a 2%-10% bet fee.My question now is what is the down to being a bookie?Do poker places make money?Even with the rake they do promotional things, have to pay for a license, and server time. They pay absorbent amounts to professionals to advertise their site(s) and they give rake back on the higher action tables (200/400 and above).
The poker rake ranks up there with the bookies. The poker sites take very little risks, and so do bookies. The players put money in the pot, and then the poker place takes a small cut of the action when certain chip levels (of the pot), and bookies charge a 2%-10% bet fee.
My question now is what is the down to being a bookie?Do poker places make money?
Even with the rake they do promotional things, have to pay for a license, and server time. They pay absorbent amounts to professionals to advertise their site(s) and they give rake back on the higher action tables (200/400 and above).
Look at it this way, the poker places and bookies are not creating a product to sell. There is no per-unit cost or any development costs. Aside from paying for the license, some tables, and renting a room, everything else is pure profit. Marketing can be as cheap or expensive as what's economical and how many people they want to bring in.Casinos only have a house advantage of a few percentage points, but they still rake in massive sums. This is because people are essentially, in the long term, handing them money.
Look at it this way, the poker places and bookies are not creating a product to sell. There is no per-unit cost or any development costs. Aside from paying for the license, some tables, and renting a room, everything else is pure profit. Marketing can be as cheap or expensive as what's economical and how many people they want to bring in.
Casinos only have a house advantage of a few percentage points, but they still rake in massive sums. This is because people are essentially, in the long term, handing them money.
Okay /chem/, the best goddamn (chemistry-related) drama is coming back to television for a third season on March 21. In this thread, discuss the show and its science (chemotherapy, red-p meth, p2p meth, hydrofluoric acid, thermite, mercury fulminate, ricin, whatever).Season 1 DVD rip:http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4775441/Season 2 TV rip (DVD rip will be out soon): Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Okay /chem/, the best goddamn (chemistry-related) drama is coming back to television for a third season on March 21. In this thread, discuss the show and its science (chemotherapy, red-p meth, p2p meth, hydrofluoric acid, thermite, mercury fulminate, ricin, whatever).
Season 1 DVD rip:http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4775441/
Season 2 TV rip (DVD rip will be out soon):
Anyone have any thoughts on hydrofluoric acid vs sodium hydroxide for body disposal?
>>36075This is one thing I could never get past when I was watching the show. He goes from the red P / HI method of reducing pseudoephedrine to reductive amination of phenylacetone, which would decrease the purity of his sample by 50%, since the L-isomer isn't psychoactive. Obviously 99% of the people watching the show would never know the difference, but yeah, his product should be way shittier now than it was in season 1.
>>36363not necessarily. at best it could mean his yield is down 50%. his purity could remain unaffected if he's using:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_resolution
>>36363not necessarily. at best it could mean his yield is down 50%. his purity could remain unaffected if he's using:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_resolution
>This is one thing I could never get past when I was watching the show. He goes from the red P / HI method of reducing pseudoephedrine to reductive amination of phenylacetone, which would decrease the purity of his sample by 50%, since the L-isomer isn't psychoactive.This is something that occurred to me as well, but:A lot of people who have done both dextro and racemic meth say the racemic meth is better. I don't know much about the subjective difference and it's unclear if these people are comparing equal amounts of D-meth.The lower yield of D-meth may be offset by the fact that batch size is not constrained by pseudoephedrine supply. Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>This is one thing I could never get past when I was watching the show. He goes from the red P / HI method of reducing pseudoephedrine to reductive amination of phenylacetone, which would decrease the purity of his sample by 50%, since the L-isomer isn't psychoactive.
This is something that occurred to me as well, but:
>>36492He may very well be the isomer fairy, because I have yet to see him resolve any of his products. & I'm not sure as per meth, but I know for a fact that dextro-amphetamine is a hell of a lot more dopaminergic than the levo isomer. Pic obligatory.
>>36492
He may very well be the isomer fairy, because I have yet to see him resolve any of his products.
& I'm not sure as per meth, but I know for a fact that dextro-amphetamine is a hell of a lot more dopaminergic than the levo isomer.
Pic obligatory.
Need a concept check, If it would take an infinite amount of time for something to happen, than in an infinitely old universe, it can happen?
Studying Cantor's work on infinity is a prerequisite to any such discussions
My view would be that the event has taken place both infinite many times and simultaniously infinitely small number of times (zero).
>>36500smokemoar
>>36488Agreed. There needs to be some aleph numbers up in this hizzy.
>>36488
Agreed. There needs to be some aleph numbers up in this hizzy.
There are other ways of playing with infinty besides aleph numbers. They're all very slippery though.No matter what way you choose to define infinity, discussing the infinte in relation to the physical world or events will put you awash in a sea of paradoxes if not handled very carefully.
There are other ways of playing with infinty besides aleph numbers. They're all very slippery though.
No matter what way you choose to define infinity, discussing the infinte in relation to the physical world or events will put you awash in a sea of paradoxes if not handled very carefully.
This is going to sound completely retarded, but how to 'lower' life forms like insects know how to build relatively complex structures like termite mounds? How can insects at two very distant locations know how to build the same thing?http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org/case-studies/case-studies/termite-inspired-air-conditioning.html
This is going to sound completely retarded, but how to 'lower' life forms like insects know how to build relatively complex structures like termite mounds? How can insects at two very distant locations know how to build the same thing?
http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org/case-studies/case-studies/termite-inspired-air-conditioning.html
>>36218>HOLY FUCK
>>36218
>HOLY FUCK
>>36218very interesting
>>36068Instinct, bro. Like how if you hear a dog bark you immediately turn your attention to the direction from which the sound came. You don't consciously think to yourself "oh shit a dog, I should look and see if it's nearby." You simply react to a specific kind of input in a way natural selection has formed your behavior. You don't immediately assume the dog is a threat, or even nearby, but your brain will, regardless of whether you want it to or not, make you react to certain information in a certain way.Unknown noise from known direction --> Determine location of the source of the noise Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>36068Instinct, bro. Like how if you hear a dog bark you immediately turn your attention to the direction from which the sound came. You don't consciously think to yourself "oh shit a dog, I should look and see if it's nearby." You simply react to a specific kind of input in a way natural selection has formed your behavior. You don't immediately assume the dog is a threat, or even nearby, but your brain will, regardless of whether you want it to or not, make you react to certain information in a certain way.
Unknown noise from known direction --> Determine location of the source of the noise
>>36446I actually have a text book called that. Got it for a quarter, don't know enough math to make sense of it though.My understanding is it's genetic. Like a person breathes, ants build mounds. It's a neurological reflex, not a conscious act.I think even consciousness is really an illusion. It's like resonance, we see our selves reflected in others and the world and so we can recall a memory of ourselves. What we think we "are" is merely our attention focused on a collection of memories.
>>36446I actually have a text book called that. Got it for a quarter, don't know enough math to make sense of it though.
My understanding is it's genetic. Like a person breathes, ants build mounds. It's a neurological reflex, not a conscious act.
I think even consciousness is really an illusion. It's like resonance, we see our selves reflected in others and the world and so we can recall a memory of ourselves. What we think we "are" is merely our attention focused on a collection of memories.
>>36552And of course perhaps your post and my post are just neurological reflexes.
Have their been any legitimate applications of theoretical physics?
>>36482I believe he means the LHC
Gordon Freeman?
Swindling investment monies from people dumb enough to invest in a free energy scheme.
Would the atom bomb count? Technically at the time of its creation the physics behind it were almost entirely theoretical. I mean, it isn't anymore, but you get my point.
This is the worst question ever asked on this board.
