User talk:Chemicalinterest/Archive 3

Reference desk
The ref desks are for answering factual queries.. ideally, using actual references. Please consider not participating in discussions on topics you know very little about. Not everyone has to respond to every question - in fact, it's better if this does not happen. Friday (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to re-iterate my request that you stop misusing the reference desks. It's clear from your answer that what you know about evolution is somebody's religious dogma, rather than any actual knowledge about evolution. So why do you keep answering questions on topics you obviously have no knowledge of? Not everyone needs to answer every question. If you can't keep this nonsense out of your answers to questions about science, please refrain from answering them at all. Friday (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Will you please say what you really mean? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Stream of Consciousness"
Hi Chemicalinterest,

I noticed you wrote this on the Science Reference Desk:


 * aaadddaaammm I write in a "stream of consciousness" techique. Whatever I think of I write.

This is definitely very bad practice on the Reference Desk. The RD is for providing factual, referenced answers to questions that are brought to us. This is not Yahoo Answers. Several editors have expressed concern about your low-quality answers, and it seems to me that you could improve your answers greatly by not writing in some stream of consciousness, but instead looking up and providing references along with your answers. Thank you. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you &mdash; I, too, sometimes have an urge to be first, but here, a 10% better answer that's second is much more valued than a first answer that's worse. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fighting...
On User talk:Eric155, you said you were "fighting against all of the other evolutionists". Please don't use Wikipedia as a battleground. It demeans your excellent work on chemistry and local geography. (Coincidentally, both favourite topics of mine, although my patch is probably different to yours!) Regards, Brammers (talk/c) 20:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I can't think of anything better to say than that two groups, not one, causes a fight. While some, like the last IP edit (last I looked) on WP:RD/S didn't want to fight, others were, lets say closer to me in the argumentative spirit. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair comment. Probably worth me adding that although it takes two to start a fight, it only takes one to end it. Given how fractious the RDs can be, that has to be a good thing: dividing the community results in a lot of counterproductive fuss. Looking forward to finding out more about the rivers of New Jersey, Brammers (talk/c) 22:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your tactful comment. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Given the sensitivities that we see at the Ref. Desk, I think a different phrasing such as "questioning assumptions of evolution" would better describe your position. I support your moral right to do that as you see fit. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes now I see that sometimes hastily written comments are not always good. Well anyway the WikiDragon has retreated back to his hole. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Silver phosphate
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionary adaptation queuing problem
Hi chem,

It's Eric. Thanks for your contributions to the above thread. I must confess I had trouble following your arguments. You appear to formulate the theory in a way that I have never encountered before. I'm not sure you understand it, but then again you seem to be an intellectually bright person. I am a Christian but I'm not a creationist, and I especially think the idea that the world is about 6000 years old is completely wrong, and manifestly so. Are you a Young Earth Creationist? I guess my position is like that of the Catholic and the Anglican churches. I don't believe that the evolutionary process is entirely random, I think that it moves to higher beings like us, and there is a reason for this. I also think that evolution is an INCOMPLETE theory, and the related discussion is an example of why I think so. I don't know how very small adaptations like the shape of the earlobe and so on can be so beneficial to survival that they are "selected for". Evolutionists tend to assert that the theory is sufficient in its current form to explain everything, but then they have always done this, even at earlier stages. For example, I think that social and sexual selection plays a much greater role in adaptation than has been given credit for. I guess there is not much point in me pursuing this debate with you, as you completely repudiate the whole concept anyway, but I'm happy that you dropped me a line. Eric155 (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is theistic evolution the topic you are looking for? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. When people talk about Intelligent Design, they often forget that most of the world's Christian's belong to churches which subscribe to the idea of evolution but not in quite the same way, say, Dawkins insists on it - that is, it has to be completely blind, totally random, without any meaning, and based on atheism. I believe that evolution is God's way of creating life, and that we, as a species are meant at some future time to colonize the galaxy and be a potent force in the universe. Perhaps so potent as to be a fourth force of nature. That time is not that far off. There's more to intelligent design than the term as it is understood in Texas, when it is presented in capital letters.

I don't understand your point about mutations. There are computer programs which allow a kind of evolution to occur. You have some kind of little bugs on the screen and you allow them to develop random changes in their operating setup. Some of them will develop traits that allow them to be more efficient at living and prospering in their virtual world. I think evolution is an incomplete theory, and it has always had an epistemological and empirical problem, because there is no clear way it could be falsified. But I don't think there is any doubt that it happened. Recent work on the genome shows a long and complicated history in our chromosomes, which includes genes for complete body fur, which has been turned off. As the genome is more closely studied, the bits and pieces of traits that were active millions of years ago when we were not yet human will come to light. This is happening now. I don't feel bad about being related to apes. I think that my genome was active millions of years ago, I had ancestors who lived before the continents had moved to where they are now. My ancestral line is about a fifth the age of the whole universe. That fills me full of awe and wonder. Eric155 (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Gazoomy
Hi there, I just noticed that Gazoomy was not deleted because of advertising but because it seems to fail Wikipedia's notability criteria as in Notability (web). And I would agree that the site has apparently not received enough coverage by reliable sources to include it to Wikipedia. So you might want to find news reports and tech magazine articles covering the topic to prevent it from being speedily deleted again. De728631 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was editing it when it was deleted and was not used to the situation. You can delete it if you want to again; I won't make a fuss over it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

gold chemistry
I don't know how much you're interested in colloidal gold or gold catalysis, but I just started the article gold-sulfur bond. Unfortunately I don't have the time this week to improve it. Maybe you can? John Riemann Soong (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try, but do you have any articles that I can read for background before expanding it? I am not an expert, but I can give it a try if I can know the facts about gold rings ground up very very fine. (lol)--Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I added some further additions, such as what happens to the hydrogen when thiol bonds to gold, and updated refs. Btw the 126-146 kJ/mol interaction is between neutral thiol or thioether and neutral colloidal gold (neglecting charged capping stabilisers on the surface) -- this interaction between uncharged chemicals is about 5 times stronger than a hydrogen bond and has 1/3 the strength of a C-H bond, which I find quite amazing. Of course, thiol radical and thiolate interactions are even stronger: "We find thiolate addition to be strongly exoergic, thiol radical to be roughly half as favorable, and thiol to be slightly favorable." (http://jcp.aip.org/jcpsa6/v120/i12/p5771_s1) You might also find this to be interesting -- apparently if you get small enough, you can synthesise gold nanoparticles with a regular structure, and aromatic thiols (mercaptobenzoic acid) will too bind in a very regular and determined way.


 * I'm trying to find the literature on electron density studies -- for example, when thiol binds to a gold atom -- how much does the gold atom become chemically different from the gold atoms below it and how are the electrons delocalised or distributed? And also there are numerous theories on the electronics that I don't have time to look up (I have to make a whole poster in 5 hours eeek) going back a long time. The grad student I worked with briefly mentioned them to me but I would like to source them. Thanks! John Riemann Soong (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I see why the bond is so special: I didn't know it at first. I thought it was with gold(I) atoms because the gold article section states that gold(I) forms bonds with sulfur compounds. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

chromium(VI) peroxide
I just took a look at the article, and I got thinking.

You could probably run this reaction in a salt ice bath at around -10 C to slow the second reaction. You could even study some rate laws! (And if you have dry ice + ethyl acetate...then -78 C baby...also propylene glycol is a common food additive, but has a low melting point.)

I wonder if you could get the first reaction to go while immensely inhibiting the second, e.g. finding a right pH. You don't want to add too much base (assuming you slow the second reaction fast enough) or your end up reversing your first reaction (hydrolysis -- deprotonated peroxide is a somewhat decent leaving group). Rather you want to find a pH buffer system of an appropriate weak base and weak acid (or an amphoteric substance) that would supply acid for the first reaction but supply base for the second.

I also suspect that the peroxide is more soluble in ether or some other organic solvent (diethyl ether) than water, seeing as it now lacks a formal charge. This means you could extract it out of water and out of peroxide (which will remain mostly in the aqueous phase), inhibiting the second reaction. This might change the complexation, changing its colour. As the ether evaporates and the peroxide gets more concentrated (and drier), it could be somewhat explosive though, so dispose of it before it does that. (or, let it evaporate behind appropriate blast protection equipment. the dry salt could be interesting-coloured.)

I forgot, but have you tried running the reaction in alcohol? Does the alcohol get oxidised? Also, do you weigh out your reagents?John Riemann Soong (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but my only contributions were boring words; no experiments. Did you take a look at my lab? If you did, you see that I have no chemicals that are not from household substances. So I cannot do any of your interesting experiments. :( --Chemicalinterest (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would think that you would have ice...and salt. And antifreeze should be available-- try propylene glycol antifreeze. (However the additives could be somewhat catalytic.) A saturated salt solution freezes somewhere around -20C. (However, you need a LOT of salt when you're trying to ice cool a whole reflux vessel. Luckily, salt is cheap. Even cheaper when you're only trying to cool a test tube.) A 40C drop from normal temperature conditions often results in a 2^4 times slower reaction, i.e. 16 times slower. An 80C drop would be even more dramatic. (This relationship obviously breaks down at extremes tho, and the fall in reaction speed becomes even steeper, because at absolute zero nothing happens).
 * pH buffers are easily to construct out of normal household ingredients. You just need to be creative. But stay safe! Have you tried experimenting with food chemistry btw? Both as a source of solvents/stabilisers and actual reagents. Consider that milk contains a lot of protein-stabilised calcium phosphate, normally insoluble in water... John Riemann Soong (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually a lot of edible items are pH buffered. Consider coca-cola. How much HCl did you use in your reaction? John Riemann Soong (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Very inaccurate. Just a squirt, probably 3/4 mL. No science involved. I could try it though. I have not experimented with food. I do not normally do organic chemistry, but maybe I can try doing some experiments. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply for the question, "Are u a child prodigy?"
Hi, I am Harish. What makes you think that I am a child prodigy? There is a boy from my country(India). His name is Avatar Tulsi and he finished MSc. Physics, i.e., post graduate program in physics at the age of twelve!!! harish (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess most Americans aren't that smart. I just studied basic boring chemistry (class = nap time) in 11th grade. Many people are 16 or 17 taking that class! And have a difficult time with it! --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. The Indian syllabus is a bit tough i think. We cover the basics of quantum mechanics(Uncertainty Principle, De Broglie Waves, Orbital Concept, Wave Function, Valence Orbital Theory, Molecular Orbital Theory, so on....). But still, my cousin in USA says that he's got lessons about the solar system in 3rd grade. harish (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of those things I covered in 11th grade, but the coverage was low. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes
Yes, I am the same.  Hazard-SJ  Talk 22:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protection
Hi. My User page is protected because it used to get vandalized often and I got tired of it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A few things
Make sure that that picture is really you and complies with the policies regarding personal information and whatnot. And while your efforts to improve the Simple English Wikipedia by any means necessary is commendable, it is generally discouraged per consensus here at English Wikipedia to mention, let alone provide a link to, the other wikipedia. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  19:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, are you going to use the "new messages" banner? :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  21:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw your advice
I did indeed read your advice at my profile on Simple. I thank you for it. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Evolution and personal property
"The hallmark of an evolutionary society is that personal property is more important than human life." ...heh, just out of curiosity, I'm confused. Personally, I find evolution a reasonable idea, but I certainly don't think personal property is more important than human life. Maybe I'm not understanding what "evolutionary society' is. Maybe it's the Buddhist in me--human life, or even sentient life in general, is extremely important; personal property is mostly a trap. Evolution seems to have little to do with either. Anyway, I just happened to see this on your page and thought I'd write. Pfly (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that "evolutionary society" is ChemicalInterest's shorthand for "the mainstream society that espouses the theory of evolution", and that the sentence tries to say that accepting or rejecting the possibility of evolution is a moral not an intellectual choice. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I'm sure many, if not most people's opinion about evolution comes from a moral framework. Not sure how it connects to personal property or abortion (if I understood ChemicalInterest's reply on my talk page). But then, I'm not sure I want to debate this topic, really. Normally I wouldn't even post this comment, but it's late and I'm tired, and my senses of judgement and wisdom, such as they are, are already asleep. One of the reasons I like working on river and stream pages on Wikipedia is because geographer-type people tend to be so friendly--and you almost never see emotions flare! (and that's how I ended up with your page on my watchlist, ChemInterest--chatting about streams) For me, Wikipedia is a way to relax, so I try to stick to geography and history. Maybe a few music theory pages--although even there you can see some surprisingly strong feelings and hot arguments. Anyway, good night. Pfly (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean by "evolutionary society" a society that does not base its laws on the Bible. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I sometimes am a very peaceful WP:Wikignome, while other times a roaring WP:Wikidragon. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hawking
I suspect his latest declaration will interest you. Cheers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The link works ok for me. I can e-mail the article if you wish. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You should get the e-mail about now. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of retirement
I thought I would let you know that I've decided to return to Wikipedia, only in a semi-retired state instead of completely retired. Life has somewhat settled down for me, and since I'm ditching pre-calculus I'll have a little more free time on my hands. The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 00:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Titrations
Do you have the equipment to do basic titrations? If so, I can give you the instructions for experiments to prove the points we're trying to make about bleach. Physchim62 (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

blank articles
Please don't create blank articles for an IP unless the IP has at least agreed to work on the article. It just creates busy-work for the deletion crew. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

RD talk & pride
Chemicalinterest,

I'd like to ask you to consider retracting your comment on the current RD grammar correction thread. I think it's inflammatory without helping resolve the issue, and frankly, I find it insulting. &mdash; Lomn 13:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From observing his posts I feel sure that Chemicalinterest did consider this post carefully. He offered an analysis in response to the unknown factor noted by Belchman, and anyone is free to present an alternative view if they disagree. Wikipedia has an article about Pride that offers some non-flammatory insights. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded on his talk page and made the comment very small . --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Alkali metals
All three have poor sourcing and a very limited covering of the subject matter to be worth rating them as B class. Nergaal (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your userbox
Hello Chemicalinterest. Looking at your userboxes, I think that User number of recent edits rank is meant to be used like this:

. Good day, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Too bad. I am not on the list anyway. I'll remove it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested
Thread moved from my talk page (there's no ulterior motive in doing this!). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I retracted my statement because you seem to have gotten the point and turned to good contributions again. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your boldness in penetrating the  Do not modify  box on my behalf. So does my good or bad twin. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you have changed your contributions and I saw some helpful contributions on the science reference desk, I see no need of any more punitive actions against you. I will not have an obsolete statement archived. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Punitive? Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

electrolysis and distillation
Have thought of getting some distillation equipment. If you don't feel like buying glassware you can hack one out of PVC pipes and duct tape (and use a cold wet towel to cool the condenser now and then). I notice you haven't used sodium chlorate as an an aqueous oxidiser. (If you have any platinum electrodes, which you probably don't, you can then go on to make sodium perchlorate). Distillation, like electrolysis, is often a very good way to drive otherwise unfavourable reactions forward. ;-) John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Calcium hypochlorite
This reagent is readily available from pool stores -- in powdered form. This allows you to make very concentrated solutions which you can weigh out (in the absence of any titration equipment); it is more stable and thus more compatible with more catalysts. In addition it can attack C-H bonds adjacent to a carbon-oxygen single bond more readily.

Since you can weigh out this bleach alternative, you can make finer measurements. It is less likely to "go off". It is also quite cheap. I mean, when you spend 2 dollars at Wal-Mart for gallon of Chlorox, which is diluted sodium hypochlorite, calcium hypochlorite is only marginally more expensive. I thought you might be interested in this choice of alternate oxidant, as it may give you more freedom to play around with reaction conditions. Regards, John Riemann Soong (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)