You are correct. A salt is an ionic compound (and technically not a molecule at all), and there are many salts other that sodium chloride: potassium chloride, potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, calcium carbonate, etc.

I'm very glad that you recognize the difference, but saying "dangerous chemicals" instead of just "chemicals" prevents others that don't understand the difference as well from perpetuating anti-science nonsense.

>Usually caused by chemicals

I need to point out that everything you encounter and interact with, including the oxygen that you breath, is a chemical. Please don't use language like this, it just perpetuates anti-science nonsense

Yes, bases will react with lipids to create soaps.

This is why bases are actually more dangerous than acids, because they turn the fats of your cell membranes into soaps in an appropriately named chemical reaction called saponification

No system is perfect, and it's practically impossible to entirely prevent bad actors from circumnavigating safety precautions. However, researchers are aware that maintaining the double blind nature of the study is necessary to properly evaluate medical outcomes, and we do everything possible to ensure the quality of our research is unadulterated. Think of it this way: why would we want to invalidate years of work?

During a star's main sequence, which is what the sun is in the middle of, there is a balancing act taking place between the crush of gravity pulling the star in, and the outward pressure of fusion pushing the star apart. As the star reaches the end of the main sequencing, the elements undergoing fusion change as all the hydrogen is converted to helium, and then the helium into carbon. This increases the outward pressure of the fusion, causing the star to swell

Because recessive genes are still passed along to the next generation with the same frequency that dominant genes are passed along. The only way in which natural selection will select against a particular allele is if carrying it decreases the odds of that individual reproducing and passing along their genes. In other words, natural selection only cares if a recessive gene is harmful even when the dominant gene is present, and the harm has to happen before the age of reproduction.

In terms of pharmaceuticals, this is usually done by inserting the gene of interest into a vector, or a piece of DNA used to transform an organism. This vector is then inserted into a bacteria, usually e.coli where the enzyme of interest is produced. Then it is a simple matter of harvesting the enzyme from the bacteria.

When doing this, design of the vector is of utmost importance. The gene of Interest needs to be placed under control of a transcriptionally active promoter, as well as including some sort of selection mechanism. This is usually done with resistance to a certain antibiotic that the culture is grown in the presence of, ensuring other bacteria cannot contaminate the product.

Hmmm, perhaps what I'm thinking is that multiple different male chromosomes have evolved in different branches of evolution?

I seem to recall learning somewhere that the male chromosome has been seen to disappear as you described, and then reevolved again later on in the same species (or perhaps one of its evolutionary offspring species so to speak). Is this true?

As per my understanding, it is continuously harvesting those free electrons that is the limit of our ability and the focus of the current Research into the topic. Currently no, the materials that we use to harvest the energy generated do not have the lifespan to be of significant use. But the point is that this is a goal worth pursuing further

Plants are more efficient in terms of energy generated per photon absorbed. As you mentioned, CO2 concentration is absolutely limiting factor for plants, but this could be fairly easily addressed when adapting the technology for a PV cell.

Photosynthesis does indeed generate free electrons, these electrons are used to power redox reactions which are used to synthesize starches. This is indeed an area of ongoing research, one of the professors at the institution I just graduated from was focusing his research on this very topic. Both plants and animals generate free electrons during metabolism, and use these electrons to do things. Harvesting the electrons is quite feasible

Right, the question is about the electrons generated by photo system 1 and photo system 2 during photosynthesis, and harnessing that as a means of electricity production. So by responding by saying photosynthesis doesn't generate energy, you're missing the fundamental aspect of the question in my opinion

But that's not what the question was asking about. The question was asking about utilizing the chemistry of photosynthesis for a new generation of photoelectric cells, which is both more efficient than burning fossil fuels as well as being better for the environment. This is an area of active and ongoing research, and shouldn't be dismissed by simply saying " burning fossil fuels is better"

I have never experienced this phenomenon so I really can't say anything other than it doesn't make much sense why this would happen

Photosynthesis absolutely is a means for generating energy, plants use the energy created to fuel the creation of sugar molecules which are then later break down for food. The starches created by plants during photosynthesis can only be created with the energy from the sunlight. Saying photosynthesis doesn't generate energy is pretty ridiculous

It's not about making GMO plants, it's about making solar cells with the highest efficiency possible. The most efficient means we have discovered in the entire universe can for converting sunlight into electric energy is photosynthesis, so why wouldn't we try and emulate that?

This question is about replacing photovoltaic cells with photosynthesis as a means of generating electric currents. They're not asking about combusting plans to generate electricity

Plants have been doing photosynthesis and harvesting sunlight energy for far longer than humans have. They are significantly more efficient at doing so than humans are, and it is very much a goal worth pursuing. Our best solar cells are currently around 20-23% efficient, implants are far more efficient than this. More efficiency means more electricity generated

I've been intrigued by this very question since I first learned about photosynthesis and the electron transport chain 20 years ago. Much work has been done trying to accomplish exactly what you're describing, but so far we have yet to successfully recreate photosynthesis. The major sticking point is that the compounds that we create to synthetically reproduce photosynthesis are not nearly as durable as the biologic molecules in a plant. We cannot directly use the same molecules that plants use because we are trying to accomplish something slightly different: plants use the electrons generated by photosynthesis to create sugar molecules, while humans are trying to harvest the electrons directly. Moving electrons is a chemical reaction called an oxidation-reduction reaction (called redox for short), and our redox molecules simply aren't as stable or efficient as their protein counterparts.

The water in your water heater tank is far to hot to use, so instead it is blended with cold water at the tap. This increases the amount of hot water available to be used. So, when you turn the cold tap down, you are reducing the amount of cold water being mixed with the incoming hot water. This is why turning off your cold tap makes your water get hotter. As for why it takes so long, as another commenter pointed out, it takes time for the water that has been sitting stagnant in the pipes for a while to get used and for truly cold water to be running through your taps. The water that has been sitting in your pipes in your house is a good deal warmer than the fresh cold water coming from the underground main line.

11x11 is asking how many total if we have 11 groups each with 11 per group? One group of 11 is 11, 2 groups is 22, 3 groups are 33, 4 groups are 44..... And 11 groups are 121

Yes (assuming the labs are using valid testing methods)