Basic Chemistry Homework Help
11 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: 1360981159681.jpg]
For some reason, I cannot understand this problem:
An 18 karat gold necklace is 75% gold by mass, 16% silver, and 9.0% copper.
A. What is the mass, in grams of the necklace if it contains 0.24 oz of silver.
The correct answer is:
43g of 18-karat gold.
But I cannot wrap my head around how this was answered, please walk be through the steps.
Thanks for your help
29 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: 1360759361567.jpg]
I've got a bit of a problem /sci/. I just found out that I person that I really admire, and is generally doing what I want to do, which is that he has a Mathematics PhD and he's doing research in it, has an IQ of around 160. He did insist that IQ doesn't matter, etc. Another person that I admire, that does creative stuff, like sketch movies and music, has an IQ of 140, and he actually found out when they thought he had some disorder because he was acting so differently.
I never was diagnosed with being "weird" or anything like that. I always just was "a fast learner" and I'm starting to feel like I'm doomed to just be that; a fast learner, never contributing anything worthwhile to what I'm interested in. The words of "A mathematicians lament" pop up in my head, as well as studies that show that serial killers generally have an IQ of about 115, too stupid to actually contribute, but too smart not to be interested in the subjects, which leads me to believe even more than IQ is playing a big part.
The thing is, I am really interested in maths, and I've almost always enjoyed the subject. Then I hear about all the greats who despised maths in school until they started to learn about proofs and stuff. I took a class on proofs, and I didn't really fancy it. So basically, I'm the opposite of these greats. Not exactly great for future prospects.
I don't really know what to do. Should I keep going with the mathematics and just hope that I'll contribute in some significant way, or just choose some less intense career path?
I want to clarify that I don't expect to be the next Einstein or anything, just to actually contribute something nice.
I've only had one official IQ test, and I'll leave out what my score was until a bit later, but it certainly was not around the 160 range. I want to see where the thread heads first.
Rejected: Peer Reviewers on Strike
4 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: flying_cow.jpg]
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers.) It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field (from wikipedia).
So far, so good. However, peer-reviewing, in many scientific professions, is a free service that is mostly performed by scientists on short-running positions, who do not have any time to waste on their peer's garbage. This renders the peer-reviewing process to have very low quality, and as a result a large proportion of scientific articles are not worth reading.
We want to help fixing this system. We demand a comprehensive scheme of compensation for peer reviewing. Quality control must not be an act of charity: it needs to be recognized as a valuable part in the academic process.
Join the process.
Where did I go wrong?? Lol.
6 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: 4f0a31ee18613326530005d9.png]
I did the math... I the votes are coming, we will not reach the goal of 500k votes... My calculations show 1 vote per 10 seconds from 421,470 Votes. Too reach 500k votes, you would need too subtract, 421,470 from 500k = 78530. Now Per 10 seconds = 1 vote. 42147 / 10 = 42147. Now we can divide that by the 1(hour), which will become our prediction. 42147 / 60 = 702.45. Now we can see It will take 702.45 hours for 500k votes. Lets shorten it by days! 702.45 / 24(Hours) = 29.268 Days!
I know this is wrong, but please show me how too solve this. My head will explode if I don't learn. I literally out of the blue became interest in this type of math lol.
9 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: jammed-finger.jpg]
I'm 23 by the time I'm 43 will technology enable my body to function at least like a 30 year old(of the time?)
we sure know a lot about what makes us healthier now but people who practiced all of that existed for centuries(but were few)
perhaps some cellular patrol device to be used in "anti aging clinics" where a swarm of nanorobots looks for issues, kills those cells (mechanically) and inserts cells with intact (long telomers, no mutations, no adhesions or junk) instead?
per haps a good supplementation program with biofeedback(long term recording of heart rate, heat signaure,bloodwork etc and crossing it with research data) would enable very good outcomes in people who practice it.