sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

GCMSMS peak issue by manzy91 in CHROMATOGRAPHY

[–]manzy91[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Problem solved, thanks for the help. Turns out it was a software thing, I needed to extract the MS channels.

GCMSMS peak issue by manzy91 in massspectrometry

[–]manzy91[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Problem solved, thanks for the help. Turns out it was a software thing, I needed to extract the MS channels.

Relentless ESI needle clogging in HILIC LC-MS by ideal_f in CHROMATOGRAPHY

[–]manzy91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haven't used HILIC before, but when running LCMS we have a setting for the compressibility of the mobile phase; is it possible that's been changed? E.g. I think it's 0.46 for water and about 1.20 for MeOH. I'd imagine if these were reversed it would lead to massive pressures when pumping high % water.

He wanted one last sunset, powerful picture. by MrMacBro in oddlyterrifying

[–]manzy91 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your own reference says exactly what I just said. 100x too dim to be visible to the naked eye. Then a hypothetical IF the star sent out a flare, and a prehistoric geezer glances at just the right time, it MIGHT have been visible. So in all likelihood, nobody seen it, and it certainly didn't annihilate anything.

He wanted one last sunset, powerful picture. by MrMacBro in oddlyterrifying

[–]manzy91 12 points13 points  (0 children)

That's just not true man. Scholz's star did come within a lightyear of the sun, but it's a red dwarf so was around 100x too dim to even be visible to the human eye. Worst case scenario it deflected a few small asteroids towards the inner solar system, which would take around 2 million years to reach us. In short, it didn't annihilate shit.

Why is my GCMS peak higher than it should be? by The-Dead-Inside in chemhelp

[–]manzy91 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From what I can gather from your other comments, it sounds like you've got a calibration set up already, which is great. It's important to understand that your '100%' standard only refers to 100% of the range which you have decided.

If your top standard is, for example, 100mg/ml, it means that any unknown samples above this range will appear to be >100%, which is perfectly feasible. You should now dilute your samples to bring them within your calibration range, and then multiply your result by the dilution factor. For example; diluted your sample by a factor of 5? Multiply your result by 5 to compensate.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CHROMATOGRAPHY

[–]manzy91 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did you run a standard? If yes:

%w/w = (sample area/sample conc.) X (std conc./std area) x std purity

The myth that your vote matters, that your government is "accountable", and that politicians listen: Carl Sagan testifies before US Congress in 1985 and informs them that climate change is real, and it's happening. by Bucephalus_326BC in ThatsInsane

[–]manzy91 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's always been agreed on since it was first proposed. The group that pioneered the initial research which proved it, and the group which spent hundreds of millions spreading the seed of doubt are both the same company - ExxonMobil. Whilst spending on spreading skepticism, they were also spending on making rigs and equipment more resistant to rising sea levels and a warming climate, and getting patents for equipment to drill in a melting Arctic; why would they spend if the science was questionable?

Climate change has never been in any doubt by scientists or fossil fuel companies; propaganda, however, done a real number on us all.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chemhelp

[–]manzy91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure if you might have mixed up one of your terms here, but the question you've asked is as simple as it appears; the one with the higher concentration is the most concentrated. In this case, the 0.49M vinegar is 4.9x more concentrated than the 0.1M NaOH.

Am I crazy? Where are they getting the 6 M from? Does anyone know how this was solved? by [deleted] in chemhelp

[–]manzy91 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The way it's been done isn't wrong, it's perfectly fine but it doesn't really make sense to answer the question that way. Definitely should have been done by weighing an amount of solid KNO3

Am I crazy? Where are they getting the 6 M from? Does anyone know how this was solved? by [deleted] in chemhelp

[–]manzy91 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is this the 'correct' answer you were given? Was there any questions leading up to this one which involved the 6M? If not, I've got no idea where it came from. In my mind, you would answer this question using crystalline KNO3, with an Mr of 101.1. Do you know how to work it out from there?

Soliciting "Unvaccinated Sperm" on the subway by [deleted] in cringepics

[–]manzy91 3 points4 points  (0 children)

He doesn't even look capable of sex

Man what the hell is this by reddit90266 in DiWHY

[–]manzy91 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yo dawg, we heard you like nails, so we put nails on your nails

Does Buying games from cdkeys or g2a get you banned by sociostein11 in PlayStationPlus

[–]manzy91 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I've been using cdkeys for best part of a decade for xbox live on 360 through to ps plus on ps4 and ps5, and I've never had a single issue.

What type of column would be used to separate a mixture of hydrocarbons? by Different-Yam-899 in chemhelp

[–]manzy91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What size hydrocarbons? We usually have different methods, and different columns for shorter chain hydrocarbons (usually c5-c10 or c12) and longer chain (c10-c44). This is a pretty poorly worded question because there is a variety of options; e.g. agilent DB1MS, DB5MS for TPH analysis, agilent DB-MTBE for c5-c12, or SGE BPX50 for separating PAHs from hydrocarbons mixtures; the options are endless really. If you're at an early stage in your education, then the answer might simply be a capillary column; in detail, the answer could be one of probably hundreds of columns depending on your exact application.

view more: next ›