Subject: Re: PATNEWS: Chomsky on India, GATT, Pharmaceutical Patents, 3rd World
From: Bruce Hayden
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:11:18 -0800
Ram Samudrala wrote:
>
> Andrew C. Greenberg (werdna@gate.net) wrote:
>
> >> I don't buy this at all. Before IP laws came about, people were
> >> inventing and publicising their inventions for hundreds of years.
> >> Further, my understanding is that those concepts were interepreted far
> >> more narrowly than they are today.
>
> >Well, gosh. You say it ain't so by asserting that you don't buy it.
>
> Not at all. I justify why I don't buy it immediately in the next
> sentence. You said "If you permit rampant free-riding, the same thing
> would result, but this time because all the inventions are kept
> secret-in-fact and not disclosed generally, or because nobody really
> has any incentive to invent." This is a false assertion given tat
> people created and published their inventions while "rampant
> free-riding" was permitted. I don't think you understand the
> mentality of inventors and creators very well.
The mentality of "inventors" and "creators" is close to irrelevant
here. You are apparently positing a group of people who don't care
about the economic value of their inventions, but rather invent
just to invent. The important group here is the group who invent
to make money. This of course includes companies who spend billions
doing R&D.; And if their purpose is to make money, then they will have
to do what Andy suggests.
> >You suggest that the Rennaisance came and passed without IP laws just
> >fine.
>
> I'm suggesting a lot of discoveries and writings were created without
> IP laws just fine.
And a lot more have been made with them.
> >How about the industrial revolution? Who can deny that industry has
> >thrived under the patent act, and that invention and technology have
> >moved at staggering rates in the past hundred years compared to the
> >prior thousands?
>
> Fallacy in logic. The issue is whether the industry would not have
> thrived were it not for patent laws.
I seem to be missing your point. You argue that the Rennaisance happened
without strong IP laws. Andy comes back and points out that the
industrial
revolution happened with much stronger IP laws. You both seem to be
arguing essentially in parallel - which may have been Andy's point
there.
Part of it though is that things have changed mightely since the
Rennaisance.
Change is much quicker - as is innovation. The Ressaisance is remembered
I would suggest primarily in its contrast with the Dark Ages. But in
comparison with today, the amount of innovation was almost negligent.
Finally, the question is not whether an industry would survive withot
patent laws, but rather where would it be without patent laws. And of
course we can't know for sure. But without strong patent laws, the
drug industry would probably not be near as strong. Companies cannot
spend the billions for R&D; w/o some guarantee of recouping this
investment.
Companies that spend the billions on R&D; don't do it because inventing
makes them feel good somehow, but rather because they see a way to make
even more money.
> >Moreover, who can plausibly try to assert that science and technology
> >prospered in those nations without strong IP laws even at any rate
> >near that the development in those nations that did in the past
> >century?
>
> I cannot believe you're using this sort of logic. It could mean
> hundreds of different things. Perhaps it means that science and
> technology proposered in a certain set of countries and it didn't
> prosper in a certain set of countries (due to various other factors)
> and the countries where it prospered were able to retard its growth
> with the means of patents.
In other words, you are arguing that causation can't be proven, and
apparently, correlation isn't reliable in your view. Unfortunately,
that is the state of information in much of economics and politics.
All you have is correlation. No absolutely provable causation. But
the government still makes decisions based on this imperfect
information.
> >For my part, I will use the Regan/Clinton argument. Is technology
> >better off today than it was five centuries ago? I think so.
> >Demonstrably so.
>
> Again, this is a major fallacy. This could be due to
> anything---you're asserting it's due to patents. Heck, without
> patents the technology could've been WAY better off.
Well, no it can't be due to anything. And even if it could, not all
causes are of equal probability.
> I know this for a fact: if, today, in my field, all the people working
> there decided to go about using patents and copyrights to protect my
> work, it would retard growth. Further, there's almost unanimous
> opinion among all software programmers I know that software patents
> retard growth (and there's plenty of stuff by the League for the
> Programming Freedom to support this POV). In both cases, the people
> who actually create the inventions agree that progress would be
> retarded by allowing monopolies over the ideas. I can give you
> specific examples as to why if you wish (the protein data bank is a
> classic example).
Oh, ok. Now I see where this is coming from. LPF. As for software,
you must remember that much of that innovation is being done in
response to payments by industry - i.e. most of those programmers
out there are being paid by someone in the industry. It is really
irrelevant whether they would be more or less innovative with or
without patents. What is important is whether businesses would
hire more or less programmers based on whether or not the businesses
felt that they could protect their investment.
I know from personal experience that some companies do look at the
money invested in software no differently from money spent in other
realms of R&D;, and justify investment based on the ability to
garner a temporary monopoly through IP laws (esp. now patents).
IMHO, companies that don't view software as strategic, are at a
serious disadvantage as compared with those competitors that do.
Likewise, those companies that are doing serious R&D; in software
that don't protect their investment will be overtaken by free-
riders who don't have to amortize the sunk cost of the R&D.;
(Which of course always the problem with free riding).
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding was not a legal opinion, and is not my employer's.
Original portions Copyright 1996 Bruce E. Hayden, All Rights Reserved
My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution,
as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Hayden bhayden@acm.org
Austin, Texas bhayden@copatlaw.com
Subject: Re: PATNEWS: Chomsky on India, GATT, Pharmaceutical Patents, 3rd World
From: Bruce Hayden
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:32:49 -0800
Ram Samudrala wrote:
>
> Eric Lucas (lucas@superlink.net) wrote:
>
> >While I agree with everything you wrote, it misses the point
> >entirely. The point is that, if a company does research (at enormous
> >cost, by the way, which the academics in this argument have
> >completely failed to acknowledge--inventions in general *don't* come
> >for free) they are going to want to get a return on their investment.
>
> Are you insisting that the only way to get a return is to have the
> current monopolistic system that we have?
Maybe not the only way, but the best way tried so far.
> >If another company comes along and uses that invention, it will reap
> >the benefit without having made any of the investment, and the company
> >that did the research in the first place will lose the competitive
> >advantage that they paid so dearly to try to get. What then is the
> >incentive for a company to put money into research then, if they can
> >simply use someone else's technology essentially for free.
>
> If I read Gregory Aharonian's article about the value of a biotech
> patent right, this is almost the case right now anyway. It just took
> one year for a competitive drug against Invirase to come out in the
> market (just one example from his data).
The company threw the dice and lost. And their patent coverage was
probably not broad enough. But you have to look at the aggregate,
instead of at single instances. And when it takes hundreds of millions
of dollars to invent many new drugs, and a fraction of the cost to
invent to knock them off, most economists will probably tell you that
more investment in R&D; will take place with better protection.
> >Technology may have moved forward before the introduction of the
> >intellectual property concept, but it was certainly at a *much* slower
> >pace.
>
> This means nothing. The issue is whether current technology would've
> moved at a slower or faster pace without IP laws.
Well, I think all can agree with this.
> Technology I'd argue was moving at a much slower pace during the days
> of the cavemen than 1000 years ago (IP laws didn't exist at either
> time). It simply shows that technology growth isn't a linear function
> (and there are reasons for this---I think technological growth is a
> snowball effect).
But you appear to be positing that IP laws are not a factor here.
> >If you insist that we give up the right to intellectual property
> >protection, then you must also be willing to give up almost all
> >advances that technology has given you.
>
> Why? Are you saying the car, the TV, the AC, the radio, all wouldn't
> have been invented and published without IP laws?
Or maybe that they might have been a little later. Or probably more
importantly, their many refinements would have been slower to arrive.
All of the above are important.
You seem to be arguing that economic incentives are irrelevant in
driving innovation. I suspect most economists would disagree.
> >All those are developments that would not be nearly as likely to have
> >happened, or would not be nearly as cheap to obtain, if people or
> >companies didn't have some certainty of having at least some period of
> >time during which they alone would benefit from an invention.
>
> I don't see the logic in this assertion. We can say the same thing
> regarding all sorts of musical instruments to things like the wheel
> and fire and various other invention.
You don't see the logic that a granting a temporary monopoly to a
rational
(economically) inventor, such as a large company, is probably an
incentive
to spend money developing the technology being patented?
That we (as a race) eventually developed wheel, fire, etc. is pretty
much
irrelevant. Their invention happened at a time when it took literally
centuries to distribute the knowledge around the world. Today, it takes
minutes. A culture could benefit over its competitors for quite awhile
by keeping these somewhat secret.
As for musical instruments, they seem to be pretty much locked into the
18th century for the most part. I have not seen that much innovation
in this area over the last couple of decades.
> >Remember also that patents exist for two reasons: to protect inventions
> >and to disclose technological information to the public. While a patent
> >protects the right of the inventor to benefit from an invention, it also
> >disseminates information to the public, who can then benefit from that
> >information by using it to make further inventions (which they then have
> >the right to patent).
>
> Have you looked into the issue of Software Patents (that's just ONE
> example, BTW)?
I look into it every day at work. That is what I do for a living.
But I work in an office where most of the rest of the patent attorneys
are EE's. And surprise, surprise, economically rational companies do
not treat it any different than other forms of R&D.; Nor under today's
laws should they. The economically rational inventor will insist on
protecting his investment through acquisition of a temporary monopoly.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding was not a legal opinion, and is not my employer's.
Original portions Copyright 1996 Bruce E. Hayden, All Rights Reserved
My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution,
as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Hayden bhayden@acm.org
Austin, Texas bhayden@copatlaw.com
Subject: Re: H2S more poisonous than HCN?
From: tim_blackmore@notes.ipl.ca (Tim Blackmore)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 96 12:59:05 GMT
In article <565cen$8bv@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz wrote:
>bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) wrote:
>>A chemistry instructor said that H2S is relatively safe only because it
>>smells so bad, but that a lethal dose of H2S is actually smaller than
>>a lethal dose of HCN. Is that true?
>>--
>> Ben Carter internet address: bpc@netcom.com
>
>HCN does not have a particularly strong smell, and ii specifically takes
>out aerobic respiration - the only energy source of your heart and your
>brain. The rest of your body can get by with fermentation (which makes
>for a rosy-cheeked corpse and an aesthetically poor death). LD50 (30
>minutes inhalation murine) = 169 ppm; 544 ppm kills in 5 minutes.
>
>H2S has a powerful odor in small quantities, though it is reputed to have
>a sweet smell in lethal doses. It is a blood and enzyme poison. LD50
>(60 minutes inhalation murine) = 634 ppm
>
It's possible that the documentation that I have read is incorrect. However,
everything that I have read suggests that at about 1000 ppm, death is more or
less instantaneous (immediate l.o.c. and stoppage of respiration). At 500 ppm
, it was said that l.o.c would occur within half of an hour with respiratory
paralysis immediately thereafter. The main reason that people say H2S is more
dangerous is that you can smell it initially and then the smell will "go away"
as you sense of smell is desensitized. Even if the concentration goes up by
an order of magnitude you will not smell it any longer, so you may feel safe
because it "went away".
Tim Blackmore tim_blackmore@notes.ipl.ca
Subject: Re: High density liquid-unreactive-to replace Hg in particle density experiment?
From: dyrkacz@anlchm.chm.anl.gov (Gary Dyrkacz)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 15:22:45 GMT
debrawj@aol.com wrote:
>Can anyone suggest a high density unreactive liquid to replace Hg in a
>measurement of particle density by fluid displacement? Thanks in advance.
This is not a simple question. Do you mean only unreactive or also
non absorbing? What you can use will depend on the nature of your
material. Highly porous materials will present more problems with
absorption than very low porosity materials. Why must the density of
the measuring liquid be high? If the measurements are with
pycnometers, then a low density liquid will be better. If a simple
overflow displacement, then there are a number of organic liquids that
might be useful depending on your material, and the amount available
for testing. Two that come to mind immediately are
1,1,2,2-tetrabromoethane (2.98 g/cc)and methylene iodide (3.3 g/cc). (
(Careful the haloethanes are fairly toxic.)
A very good aqueous system is sodium polytungstate in water.
Denisties up to around 2.9 g/cc have reasonable viscosities. The
solutions are clear, nearly colorless, and the toxicity appears to be
low.
Gary Dyrkacz
Argonne National Laboratory
dyrkacz@anlchm.chm.anl.gov
Subject: Re: [Q] Does limestone violate the Gibbs Phases rule ?
From: Lee Trowbridge
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:08:03 -0800
C++ Freak wrote:
>
> A question for those who know Gibbs Phase Law:
>
> F = C - P + 2
> where
> F = degrees of freedom
> C = number of components
> P = number of phases
>
> Imagine a system with CaO, CaCO3 and CO2, e.g. heating marble in a closed
> vessel.
>
> 3 components (CaCO3, CaO and CO2).
> 2 phases (CO2 gas, decomposing marble solid)
>
> The reaction is
>
> CaCO3 <-> CaO + CO2
>
> That gives F = 3 - 2 + 2 = THREE degrees of freedom !!!
>
> This seems to be wrong, as there is only ONE degree: each temperature of
> equilibrium belongs to a given pressure. Above the temp the equilibrium
> shifts to the right and below to the left of the above reaction.
> At atmospheric CO2 pressure it is 900 C.
>
> Is limestone an exception ?
> What is wrong here ?
>
> Klaas
Though one generally understands "components" to be elements, in this
case there are only two independent components, which we can identify as
CaO and CO2, since CaCO3 can be made up as a linear (1:1) combination of
these two combinations of elements. So in the phase rule:
F = C - P + 2
where
F = degrees of freedom
C = number of components
P = number of phases
C is 2, not 3.
In this example, if we treat CaCO3 and CaO as separate chemical compounds,
they would each constitute a separate phase (perhaps distinguishable only on
a microscopic scale). Thus the number of phases, P will be 3, not 2 (two
types of solids and one gas)
The degree of freedom, F, in the example you outlined then is:
F = 2 - 3 + 2 = 1 degree of freedom
This applies to the example you specified, namely a constant volume system
where the volume is adequate to allow a gas to exist.
I assumed that the condensed phase would form two phases (perhaps a limestone
core and a CaO crust) as CO2 was driven off. I think that's roughly what
happens in calcining (traditional term for thermal decomposition of limestone)
limestone or marble. In some solids, the decomposing material might remain
as a single phase, a solid or liquid solution for example. In such a case,
the number of degrees of freedom would be 2 rather than one.
The "degrees of freedom" is the number of intrinsic variables that can be
independently specified (at equilibrium). As in the earlier example, one
such variable would be temperature, but the other would be the composition,
say the mole fraction, of the solution. At a given temperature, any mole
fraction of CaCO3 and CaO "solution" would produce the same pressure of CO2.
In the example above, however, you have implicitly selected a particular
ratio of components (1:1, CaO:CO2), thereby specifying the value of a
second degree of freedom variable.
L.D.Trowbridge
LDT@ORNL.GOV
Subject: Re: 2 CH2O or 4 CH2O - please help me find the correct one.
From: sven.berglund@nts.mh.se (Sven Berglund)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 15:17:50 GMT
patsummers@aol.com wrote:
(discussing a - somewhat limited - method of balancing chemical
equations)
>Lets start by taking a look at the equation without any coefficients:
>C2H4 + NO + O2 -------> CH2O + NO2
>Now lets balance the carbon and hydrogen atoms
But, Pat, you are now in fact taking for granted
(1) that all these reactants actually belong in the same equation
(that is, that all reactant coefficients must be non-zero)
(2) that C2H4 and NO should appear in a 1:1 ratio
Then, of course, you end up with the simplest balanced equation that
satisfies the conditions you have quite arbitrarily imposed, namely
>2C2H4 + 2NO + 3O2 -----------> 4CH2O + 2NO2
>Lo and behold the correct balanced equation.
A correctly balanced Irish Stew - an arbitrary mixture of several
correctly balanced equations.
Pat, I constantly endure, oppose, and correct freshman efforts like
Ag+ + Pb2+ + 3Cl- -> AgCl + PbCl2
(a common way of trying to express the simple fact that silver and
lead simultaneously precipitate in the dear old separation scheme). By
your technique, one easily proves that - lo and behold! - this is the
one and only balanced equation. I did not expect to see this sort of
reasoning used at your level.
One of the first things I try to teach my freshmen (and generally
succeed within a month or so) is that there is no justification for
putting species in the same equation when there is no stoichiometric
relationship between the proportions in which they react. In this
example (as you state quite correctly), ethene and nitrogen monoxide
are both being oxidized. There is no reason to assume that these two
reactions should be in any particular ratio to each other. Therefore,
we are dealing with an Irish Stew.
>I try to make it a point to only help with homework and to not answer the
>question directly but, just for you, I have made an exception.
Same here, Pat.
Best regards,
Sven Berglund
Subject: Re: 7 November, PLutonium Day is the only future holiday
From: Mike Herauf
Date: 11 Nov 1996 16:01:57 GMT
>> I, too, can write a poem? O.Kaaay...
>>
>> My holidays will surely stay;
>> A.P.'s poem was out of line.
>> November 7, just another day;
>> Sorry but I'm out of time ;^)
>
>Or this:
>
>There still is a man from Hanover,
>whose ramblings, alas, are not over--
>Although e, i, and pi
>come not from nuclei
>he continues to spout ideas which describe reality about as well as the
>end of this limerick conforms to the traditional meter of a limerick.
>
Let me take a crack at it; how 'bout a haiku?
One Atom Pu kitchen-sink garbage rehash
plagiarized theory
self-important lunatic
ridiculous spam
Subject: Re: 7 November, PLutonium Day is the only future holiday
From: Mike Herauf
Date: 11 Nov 1996 16:01:57 GMT
>> I, too, can write a poem? O.Kaaay...
>>
>> My holidays will surely stay;
>> A.P.'s poem was out of line.
>> November 7, just another day;
>> Sorry but I'm out of time ;^)
>
>Or this:
>
>There still is a man from Hanover,
>whose ramblings, alas, are not over--
>Although e, i, and pi
>come not from nuclei
>he continues to spout ideas which describe reality about as well as the
>end of this limerick conforms to the traditional meter of a limerick.
>
Let me take a crack at it; how 'bout a haiku?
One Atom Pu kitchen-sink garbage rehash
plagiarized theory
self-important lunatic
ridiculous spam
Subject: Re: ethanol & environment
From: glass@glass.cv.lexington.ibm.com
Date: 11 Nov 1996 18:03:26 GMT
In <1996111009470269278@zetnet.co.uk>, Bill Henderson writes:
>Hello
>
>My chemistry teacher is kindly allowing me to use his access to the
>'net to ask a question about my project. Mind you it's him that's set
>me the problem in the first place!!!
>
>I have to complete a project on the industrial manufacture of
>ethanol. Everything is going fine except I can't find any information
>on the adverse effects on the environment due to this process.
>
>Can anybody out there help me PLEASE?
>
>Kirsty Simpson
>Blairgowrie High School
>Blairgowrie
>Perthshire
>Scotland
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>--
>Bill Br of Cally, Perthshire, Scotland
>e-mail bill.henderson@zetnet.co.uk
>packet GM0VIT@GB7YEW.#79.GBR.EU
>
>
Environmental impact of industrial ethanol production? Oh,
you mean, what happens when a distillery/warehouse burns down?
Consider the fire at the Heaven Hill distillery last week (in
Bardstown, Kentucky). The distillery and several (6) warehouses
burned, destroying approximately 7.7 million gallons of bourbon.
Some of the flaming alcohol, which burns with a very pale flame
(which makes it difficult to tell if it's flaming or not in daylight),
made it to a local creek, and 'contaminated' the water supply.
Local farmers were advised to move their livestock away from
the creek, and to provide an alternate source of water, else
the livestock might become 'polluted'! :-)
Local government environmental officials were contemplating mandating
the construction of earthen dikes around bourbon warehouses to prevent
such run-off problems in future disasters such as this.
Dave
P.S. It's true!
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: Robert Fung
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:54:48 -0800
Peter Diehr wrote:
>
> Robert Fung wrote:
> >
> > But isn't a photon a wave ? Mathematically a wave packet
> > built up from a superposition of a certain spectral distribution
> > of wave frequencies ?
> >
>
> No, a photon does not consist of bits and pieces of an electromagnetic
> wave. The photon is a quantum object; it is the quanta of the electromagnetic
> field. As such, it has both wave and particle attributes. It is also subject
> to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP).
This part is still confusing. Can you elaborate more on the distinction
since the confusing part seems to be, where, what range, mathematically the
quantization occurs for free wavepackets. Does 'hbar' enter the picture only
as an empirically derived proposition or is is mathecally derivable from
EM constants. I've read nothing to this effect so far.
The wave-packet definition I'm working from being:
E'=E * integral { dk * f(k) * e ^-i*(wt-kx) }
f(k)=a gaussian spectral funtionof the wave-number k, w=c|k_o|,
>
> If you are able to fully specifiy the electromagnetic field, then one of
> the quantum properties is that you no longer know how many photons you have!
> That is, the photon number is not an eigenvalue of the electromagnetic field.
I guess this is the case when the source is switched on and off and
the resulting wave packet contains energy larger than one hbar*w_o
yielding many coherent, phase-related photons ?
>
> When you think of a photon as having wave properties, the waves in question
> are probability amplitudes ... and these are going to tell you the likelihood
> of finding the photon here or there.
And this matches what I'm reading in terms of locating the photon in
some symmetric region k +- delta k/2 by treating the abs-squared
spectral function f(k) as the probability density P(k) for the wave-number
lying within the region.
> Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Are there any materials that are DC-conductive and RF-transparent?
From: glass@glass.cv.lexington.ibm.com
Date: 11 Nov 1996 22:30:48 GMT
In <566989$qs3$1@usenet.dacom.co.kr>, DDTH@chollian.dacom.co.kr (C58.>H NEWS GROUP @L?k@Z) writes:
>Larry Sikora (Sikora@MalibuResearch.com) wrote: : I am looking for a
>material that is DC-conductive and RF-transparent. : Can anyone help?
>
How conductive at DC? How transparent to RF? Have you considered
something like Indium-Tin-Oxide, which is the stuff the transparent
electrodes on LCD panels are made from? It's sort of conductive at
DC (Ok, it has a relative high resistance, but it does conduct), and
it's transparent to light, which is sort of the ultimate RF.
Dave
P.S. Standard Disclaimer: I speak for myself and not for my company.
Subject: Re: ethanol & environment
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 11 Nov 1996 21:56:24 GMT
glass@glass.cv.lexington.ibm.com wrote:
[snip]
>Environmental impact of industrial ethanol production? Oh,
>you mean, what happens when a distillery/warehouse burns down?
>Consider the fire at the Heaven Hill distillery last week (in
>Bardstown, Kentucky). The distillery and several (6) warehouses
>burned, destroying approximately 7.7 million gallons of bourbon.
>Some of the flaming alcohol, which burns with a very pale flame
>(which makes it difficult to tell if it's flaming or not in daylight),
>made it to a local creek, and 'contaminated' the water supply.
>Local farmers were advised to move their livestock away from
>the creek, and to provide an alternate source of water, else
>the livestock might become 'polluted'! :-)
>
>Local government environmental officials were contemplating mandating
>the construction of earthen dikes around bourbon warehouses to prevent
>such run-off problems in future disasters such as this.
An emergency airlift from Skid Row to absorb the runoff or a massive
compounding of Cherries Jubilee to neutralize it would be more creative.
Was it an insurance fire or is the stuff going to be in short supply?
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Re: Dye Chemistry.
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 11 Nov 1996 21:59:07 GMT
CCD4MCS@leeds.ac.uk (M.C. Sugdon) wrote:
>Does anyone out there have specific info on cross conjugated chromophores eg
>indigo derivatives, benzdifuranone dyes, quinacridone pigments,
>diketopyrrolopyrrole pigments and squarilium dyes.
>
>thanks
>Mat.
"Color Chemistry," Heinrich Zollinger, is a good start.
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Re: paracetamol and potassium dichromate
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 11 Nov 1996 22:05:42 GMT
enda mc elduff wrote:
>Re experiment I done in college.
>I boiled 0.1g of paracetamol in 1ml of 0.1M HCL for 3 mins, and then
>added 10ml of water and cooled. No precipate formed.
>I then added 0.05ml of 0.0167M potassium dichromate. A violet colour
>developed which did not turn red.
>WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN ie whats the chemical reaction involved ?
>WHAT DOES IT DO TO TO THE PARACETAMOL MOLECULE?
>CAN ANYBODY HELP ME ON THIS PLEASE.
You took 4-hydroxyacetanilide, maybe hyrolyzed off acetate to give the
soluble hydrochloride of 4-aminophenol (no ptt. is a clue that it
worked), then oxidized it up to the quinoneimine. At this point at least
two things can happen,
1) You have enough oxidant for 100% conversion. You get the
quninoneimine or its hydrochloride depending on pH. It will not stick
around indefinitely either way.
2) You have enough oxidant for partial conversion, and get the
imine/amine analogue of quinhydrone.
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Re: Is this right?
From: joris bellenger
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:19:45 +0100
The N=?iso-8859-1?Q?=F6rds ?=rds wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>Is this right? Is this right? Please Tell me! Tell me! Please, oh
> >>please, for the love of God, TTEELL MMEE!!!!!!
> >
> >No ! it´s left !
> >
> >Sorry could´nt resist!
> >
> >
> >>You left it? Well, you´d better go right back and get it :)
>
> If You believe in God, You don´t need to go back, You just pray
> and hope that God hears You!!!!
> Please comment my opinions, IF YOU DARE!!! HA HA HA HA HAAA!!!!!!!!!!
>
> The Nörds!
> P.S. We are two ladies from the north. D.S.
/\
/ \
/_ %%==O=% _____________
% - -% | '\\\\\\
_____c% > __ | ' ____|_
(_|. . % ` % .' | + '||::::::
||. ___)%%%%_.' | '||_____|
||.( \ ~ / ,)' \'________|_____|
|| /| \'/ |\ ___/____|___\___
_,,,;!___*_____\_| _ ' <<<:|
/ /| |_________'___o_o| b'ger
/_____/ /
|:____|/ "Hi ladies. I dare to answer you".
that I'm on the Net too"
--
`,
<--- ,\, #
|/ ? SEE YA!
| ~ )\ -------
/_ /\ \____ joris bellenger (b'ger)
~_/ \ e-mail: svzanten@xs4all.nl