Can anyone provide insight as to how/why to calculate the EtOH content of a substance in g/L is the ABV (%) multiplied by 8?
Examples:
Beer at 4% ABV is simply 4(8) = 32 g/L EtOH.
Whiskey at 35% ABV is 35(8) = 256 g/L EtOH.
Basically, what significance does the digit 8 have? The chapter on forensic alcohology in my forensic medicine doesn't elaborate.
The density of ethanol is .789g/mL, round to 0.8g/mL and convert to g/L and you get 8.
What happend to DNP vs Cancer? Did the guy deliver?
I need a serious answer.
Can a nigga get a leash?
That's 80 nigga
How many A's will it take to bring my 2.3cummative gpa to a 3.5?
I've always wondered how chemistry works.
Those equations chemistry has where you combine two compounds and different compounds emerge, can you predict them using a generic method or do you just have to test it in the real world and memorize what happens?
There's also certain combinations of elements that aren't stable together, can you predict that? If i pick a few random elements, is there a method that tells me if they can form a compound, or do you have to test it in the real world?
What does the red exclamation marks mean next to some drinks?
Bond order and molecular orbital theory attempts this
So the answer is no? You can't predict chemical reactions?
>Bond order and molecular orbital theory attempts this
>So the answer is no? You can't predict chemical reactions?
... wat?
>Bond order and molecular orbital theory attempts this
Since it isn't explained what the word "this" in that sentence refers to, the assumption was it refers to a general method of how to predict chemical reactions and which combinations of elements are stable together. In order to confirm that the assumption is correct, the follow up question
>So the answer is no? You can't predict chemical reactions?
was asked. If the assumption is correct then yes, the answer is no. You cannot predict chemical reactions.
I don't know what's confusing you user.
Anyone know any good online set theory courses?
Does there exist a set of genes where gene A is dominant over gene B, gene B over gene C, and gene C over gene A?
Is there a perfect square such that when subtracted by its factor its a (another) perfect square?
Is there some x such that x^2-x is a perfect square? No (unless you accept x=0 or x=1).
x^2-x = x*(x-1)
Any number which is a factor of x cannot be a factor of x-1 (if x is a multiple of n, x-1 isn't a multiple of n and vice versa).
If x*(x-1) is a perfect square, x*(x-1)=p*p for some p. p can't be prime (as that would imply x=p and (x-1)=p), so p must be composite.
Set p=u*v => x*(x-1)=u*u*v*v. Given that neither u nor v can be a factor of both x and x-1, this implies x=u*u and x-1=v*v. I.e. x and x-1 are both perfect squares. But you can't have two perfect squares which differ by 1
what is the name of this again?
1/a + 1/b = 1/c
>That's 80 nigga
So, alcohol is less dense than water by a factor of 5:4
Because volumetric equations don't give a shit about density.
Thank you that was well explained.
Hey Veeky Forums
Let's talk about a hypothetical planet that has no atmosphere, but we intend to terraform it.
Presuming it has enough gravity to hold an atmosphere indefinitely, would it be sufficient to have an atmosphere of pure oxygen at 0.2 atm without any other gasses present, provided people were given time to adjust in a pressure chamber?
no
>an atmosphere of pure oxygen at 0.2 atm
>house fires burn five times as hot and five times more quickly
I would've thought that, because of the lower pressure, there'd be just as many oxygen molecules in the same space as you would have in Earth's atmosphere?
>Presuming it has enough gravity to hold an atmosphere indefinitely
If this is the case, where did it's atmosphere go?
Regarding the actual question though, I'm not sure that any amount of time is enough to allow humans to adjust to .2 atm. I know for a fact humans can survive with less oxygen then we have, there are actually controlled rooms with enough oxygen to breath but not enough to allow fire to burn.
It's really just the pressure that matters, humans are so used to 1 atm that we don't realize how much it actually is and if we only had .2 atm we'd be done for.
At the top of Mt Everest, atmospheric pressure is a mere .33 atm. I think people could with enough time to adjust, survive in .2 atm for extended periods.
What I want to know is whether you'll be getting enough oxygen if the atmosphere is pure O2, instead of being mostly nitrogen.
except that oxygen molecules are attracted to one another due to polarity.
>At the top of Mt Everest, atmospheric pressure is a mere .33 atm.
Wow I never knew that. I guess .2 atm wouldn't be that much of a stretch. But people on Everest need to use an oxygen tank to breath. So I guess your question is would these people have any trouble if the tank of oxygen they were breathing is low pressure? If we ignore any effects from lack/excess of oxygen, what effect does low pressure have on breathing? It's an interesting question and I don't know the answer.
Would a pure oxygen gas exhibit a "surface tension" effect? The polarity of the molecule can't be that strong to make a noticeable difference in density (besides I thought O2 was linear in shape).
Can a human being (body+brain/mind) be considered as a technological device? An advanced organic machine?
Did human beings get addicted to certain behaviours/substances before the invention of manufactured alcohol, drugs and food?
Harmonic mean ?
>technological device
Not really. "Technological" implies craftsmanship, "device" implies a specific purpose.
>An advanced organic machine
Yes, loosely.
i was wondering this as well
my autism won't calm the fuck down until i figure this out
you an predict some
it's just very difficult