There is a typo in the article summary. The polymer material will reportedly absorb 1.71 mmole (millimoles = 1 x 10^-3^ moles) of CO_2_ per gram of the polymer. A lot better than nmoles (nanomoles = 1 x 10^-9^ moles), but your point still stands, they'll have to do a lot better CO_2_ per gram of polymer to have any atmospheric impact. Also, one mole of CO_2_ has a mass of 44.01 grams, not 75.68.
The summer blend is simply a formulation of "gasoline" that has approximately the correct vapor pressure for the high temperatures found in the summer months.
For gasoline to burn, it needs to get into the gas phase. For this to occur at the rate necessary to support combusion in the engine of a car, the mixture known as gas must have a sufficiently high vapor pressure. Since the vapor pressure of any liquid increases as the temperature goes up, gas must be formulated to have a "high" vapor pressure in the cold winter months. In the summer when the temperature is high, "gas" must be formulated such that the vapor pressure of the mixture isn't too high such that the gas evaporates before it enters the cylinders of the engine.
Adding ethanol to gasoline is one way to accomplish this. Ethanol molecules have strong intermolecular attractions (forces that bind neighboring molecules together) due to hydrogen bonding. As a consequence, mixtures with ethanol will have a lower vapor pressure than mixtures without ethanol at the same temperature.
This was exactly what I was thinking. As a professor who teaches general chemistry, this table is pretty, but as a resource of information about the elements, it really pales in comparison to the more standard table in use today. Learning about trends in reactivity, properties, atomic and ionic radii all seem substantially more difficult to "see" in this chart.
Also, while chemists seem to argue about how to number the groups in the current table, the group numbers are still quite useful in determining information about groups of elements including the number of valence electrons that most directly influences the bonding of the elements. This table just makes this bad situation worse.
Yes, but the core functionality still is too flaky to roll out for our MAC users. Even on the windows side, the special integration features only work well with Office 2003 and that is an expensive upgrade in itself.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a typo in the article summary. The polymer material will reportedly absorb 1.71 mmole (millimoles = 1 x 10^-3^ moles) of CO_2_ per gram of the polymer. A lot better than nmoles (nanomoles = 1 x 10^-9^ moles), but your point still stands, they'll have to do a lot better CO_2_ per gram of polymer to have any atmospheric impact. Also, one mole of CO_2_ has a mass of 44.01 grams, not 75.68.
The summer blend is simply a formulation of "gasoline" that has approximately the correct vapor pressure for the high temperatures found in the summer months.
For gasoline to burn, it needs to get into the gas phase. For this to occur at the rate necessary to support combusion in the engine of a car, the mixture known as gas must have a sufficiently high vapor pressure. Since the vapor pressure of any liquid increases as the temperature goes up, gas must be formulated to have a "high" vapor pressure in the cold winter months. In the summer when the temperature is high, "gas" must be formulated such that the vapor pressure of the mixture isn't too high such that the gas evaporates before it enters the cylinders of the engine.
Adding ethanol to gasoline is one way to accomplish this. Ethanol molecules have strong intermolecular attractions (forces that bind neighboring molecules together) due to hydrogen bonding. As a consequence, mixtures with ethanol will have a lower vapor pressure than mixtures without ethanol at the same temperature.
Last time I checked, the viscosity of water decreases when the temp is raised.
This was exactly what I was thinking. As a professor who teaches general chemistry, this table is pretty, but as a resource of information about the elements, it really pales in comparison to the more standard table in use today. Learning about trends in reactivity, properties, atomic and ionic radii all seem substantially more difficult to "see" in this chart.
Also, while chemists seem to argue about how to number the groups in the current table, the group numbers are still quite useful in determining information about groups of elements including the number of valence electrons that most directly influences the bonding of the elements. This table just makes this bad situation worse.
Yes, but the core functionality still is too flaky to roll out for our MAC users. Even on the windows side, the special integration features only work well with Office 2003 and that is an expensive upgrade in itself.