@NirbhayThacker Nor that. Maybe post it as a question on the main site (though I don't know whether some people there would consider it too easy).
Does anyone here know, are "What might this substance be?" questions considered off-topic?
On another forum I was reading an account of something somebody had produced in a home experiment, and the physical and chemical properties of the substance he described seemed rather bizarre, especially considering how he claimed to have made it. Assuming he didn't just make the whole account up (and the account is very detailed and circumstantial), I'm curious to know what are the possibilities for what the stuff could be.
Are "What's this mystery substance?" questions considered off-topic?
On another forum I was reading an account of something somebody had produced in a home experiment, and the physical and chemical properties of the substance he described seemed rather bizarre, especially considering the raw mate...
We know that Chromium has 5 electrons in 3d and 1 electron in 4s. Another example, Copper has 3d10 and 4s1. What knowledge of spectroscopy shows us this matter? I mean what is the reason for this matter? I know about orbitals. Our teacher says it has physical phenomena. I'm looking for that. Plea...
@soupless They were all derived separately historically and while it seems like you would need two, all three are necessary before you could derive a the combined gas law. To see why Boyle+Charles doesn't equal Guy-Lussac, consider these forms of Boyle's and Charles laws.
Combining these, we get
Which is not equivalent to Guy-Lussac's law. The key issue is that the proportionality "constants" of Boyle's/Charle's laws are only constant provided that the temperature/pressure (and amount) remain constant.
@soupless But if you assume $V1=V2$, then in your initial statement of Boyle's law $P1=P2$ and and $T1=T2$ in Charles's law. The issue is that Boyle's/Charles's laws already assume that T/P are constants, where combining the equations would require both to be constant or else to recognize that the proportionality "constant" for each law actually depends on the variables that were previously held constant.
Oh, I didn't even notice you wrote it the other way :D
There isn't a right way or a wrong way. I think both are 'correct' (depending on which style guide you follow). It's just that Charles' appears logically inconsistent to me.
@orthocresol I caught myself midway through writing. Its one of those things I know to do, but also very often forget, especially for quick little comments.
When glucose is reacted with Hydroxylamine, the following reaction takes place:
The glucose in the reaction is an $D(+)-(\alpha)$ glucose. What if we took beta glucose instead. Will the product be the same of what?
When glucose is reacted with Hydroxylamine, the following reaction takes place:
The glucose in the reaction is an $D(+)-(\alpha)$ glucose. What if we took beta glucose instead. Will the product be the same of what?
The Periodic Table
The Periodic Table