The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Nirgilis
In word, hold ctrl and press = then type away :h: . Do exactly the same to get the text back to normal :yep:


Okay, thank you. It works in words but can you post on the forums using it? I've tried copying and pasting it and it doesn't work, and when you press ctrl = on the forums it just magnifies the screen. :K:
Original post by 21stcenturyphantom
Okay, thank you. It works in words but can you post on the forums using it? I've tried copying and pasting it and it doesn't work, and when you press ctrl = on the forums it just magnifies the screen. :K:


See below :h:

Original post by EierVonSatan
Word has it's own subscript tool, you have to wrap subscript tags around the numbers on the forums:

H[noparse]2[/noparse] becomes H2
Original post by 21stcenturyphantom
Okay, thank you. It works in words but can you post on the forums using it? I've tried copying and pasting it and it doesn't work, and when you press ctrl = on the forums it just magnifies the screen. :K:


Check EVS's post. He's explained it there :h:
Original post by Nirgilis
See below :h:



Original post by Loz17
Check EVS's post. He's explained it there :h:


Aha! Success! Thank you both very much. Much obliged. :wink:
Hi guys!

I need some help understanding the theory behind this week's lab. We have to prepare tin(IV) iodide and then compare its solubility with tin(IV) chloride.

We have to see if stannic iodide and stannic chloride dissolve in ethanol, toluene, HCl (conc and dilute) and sodium hydroxide. Is this simply 'as it dissolves' or is there ligand substitution in there somewhere as well? Also, if there is ligand substitution, is there likely to be precipitation of the new compounds? (Sorry, I hate complex ions :grumble:)
i would have thought that it is all a matter of polarity. polar molecules dissolve best in polar solvents while non polar molecules dissolve in non polar solvents.
CFSE is doing my head in :sigh:
Is anyone about to quickly answer a question? If you have the composition ratio of a stucture (wustite, FeO) of Fe0.90O. How do you calculate the proportions of Fe(II) and Fe (III) ions in the structure?
Reply 3328
Original post by Loz17
CFSE is doing my head in :sigh:


That's because CFSE is stupid. If you think about it too much, you quickly realize what an unsatisfactory explanation it is.

WRT your wüstite question, if we have FeIIIxFeIIyOz, then by considering charge balancing we get

3x + 2y = 2z

Since z=1 and x + y = 0.9 (=> y= 0.9 - x), we can sub in and solve for x, which also gives us y.

Spoiler

(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by BJack
That's because CFSE is stupid. If you think about it too much, you quickly realize what an unsatisfactory explanation it is.

WRT your wüstite question, if we have FeIIIxFeIIyOz, then by considering charge balancing we get

3x + 2y = 2z

Since z=1 and x + y = 0.9 (=> y= 0.9 - x), we can sub in and solve for x, which also gives us y.

Spoiler



Yes, I quickly realised this after an hour of trying to apply it to spinel structures. The hard part was trying to see the logic of the the theory :sigh:

Thank you ever so much. Would have take me forever to see that. The example I was looking at put it on a much much larger scale.


Perfect for getting rid of garlic breath after a romantic meal :ahee:


EDIT: Which if you follow some of those links will tell you it won't work... :holmes:
:wavey:
Original post by boromir9111
:wavey:


:wavey:

How's the chemical life?
Original post by Loz17
:wavey:

How's the chemical life?


Your sig gif is too much :rofl:


BOT: Had a careers talk today. Who ever knew there were so many options for a chemist :tongue:
Original post by Nirgilis
Your sig gif is too much :rofl:


BOT: Had a careers talk today. Who ever knew there were so many options for a chemist :tongue:


:rofl: cheers me up on days like today

Care to share? I've no idea what I want to do and any career talks we get are all about forensics and what to do now the FSS has been closed
Quick question guys.. in an IR spectrum, a peak at 1650 would that be C=O or ArC=C ??
Original post by VanillaTwilight
Quick question guys.. in an IR spectrum, a peak at 1650 would that be C=O or ArC=C ??


Little bit lot for an amide (which is the lowest of the common C=O functional groups). Could possibly be a carbonate ester/carbamate or something similar where there is lots of pi donation into the C=O pi star orbital and hence the C=O bond is weakened quite substantially. That's just a guess mind as I've never seen an IR spectrum of one of those, could be wrong. A little bit high for a C=C stretch though. Do you know what functional groups you've got in your molecule? And do you have any other peaks in that region?
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by illusionz
Little bit lot for an amide (which is the lowest of the common C=O functional groups). Could possibly be a carbonate ester/carbamate or something similar where there is lots of pi donation into the C=O pi star orbital and hence the C=O bond is weakened quite substantially. That's just a guess mind as I've never seen an IR spectrum of one of those, could be wrong. A little bit high for a C=C stretch though. Do you know what functional groups you've got in your molecule? And do you have any other peaks in that region?


I eventually figure it out :tongue:

It was an amine, but the C=O bond was lowered due to conjugation (a bit too low, but it was the only thing that would actually fit the molecular formula!)

Thanks though :biggrin:
I introduce myself!

Name: Gregorius alias Kallisto
Hobbies: reading, art, martial art, sport (mainly martial art :biggrin:), natural science (physics, biology and chemistry of course)
Where you live: I live in Germany
Current Studying level: Studying for my life and an A-level at the moment!
What you are studying: natural sciences, languages and social sciences - these are my subjects.
Hero(s): Otto Hahn, because he has discovered the nuclear fission - that's interesting - and both Marie and Pierre Curie who have discovered the radioactivity! Although radioactivity is dangerous, it's an important discovery not only for Energy Production!
(edited 12 years ago)

Latest