If it's a useful enzyme, yeah, it makes them useless. Or it binds them in an improper way to be a substrate. Obviously, mass is conserved beyond the teensy tiny bit accounting for the chemical energy.Oxidation ≠ destruction
If it's a useful enzyme, yeah, it makes them useless. Or it binds them in an improper way to be a substrate. Obviously, mass is conserved beyond the teensy tiny bit accounting for the chemical energy.Oxidation ≠ destruction
From my limited understanding, the reduction to Cr(III) doesn't involve enzymes, but once it's at the +3 state, it can bind to enzymes- and DNA. Is this correct?WTF are you talking about grandpa? Do you even know what an enzyme is? Fair warning: I have over 50 papers in enzymology in tier 1 journals.
So, a bound enzyme still works when crosslinked? Oh, and the whole "grandpa" thing? Do tell me how you are willing to put Hexavalent chromium in your system, then.WTF are you talking about grandpa? Do you even know what an enzyme is? Fair warning: I have over 50 papers in enzymology in tier 1 journals.
More to the point, that happens rapidly. I don't think he really wants any Cr (VI) in his diet.From my limited understanding, the reduction to Cr(III) doesn't involve enzymes, but once it's at the +3 state, it can bind to enzymes- and DNA. Is this correct?
This is correct, chromium VI is reduced to the III states. The standard explanation is that Cr(III) has a high-spin d5 configuration that does not allow for the replacement of ligands from the coordination sphere, so it is not very reactive and therefore has a low toxicity profile. Cr(II) is actually a reductant that is oxygen sensitive (oxidizes to Cr(III).From my limited understanding, the reduction to Cr(III) doesn't involve enzymes, but once it's at the +3 state, it can bind to enzymes- and DNA. Is this correct?
I never said such a thing, this is a sign of your cognitive decline . The discussion was about batteries and you ranted on toxic metals (Ni, Co, Cu, Cr), but all of them are actually trace essential elements, so chromium for example:
Since J.J. is not a real person that gives you permission to post crazy non-sensical crap.Is chromium a trace essential metal? - PubMed
If chromium is an essential metal it must have a specific role in an enzyme or cofactor, and a deficiency should produce a disease or impairment of function. To date, no chromium-containing glucose tolerance factor has been characterized, the purpose of the low-molecular-weight chromium-binding...pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
You could have gotten 2800 mah AAs of the low drain type (loses 3% of the charge per year) and a good charger from Amazon or similar for less money. These work even in remotes so you'll probably never need new AA's for years.For a lack of a better place to put this comment I am putting it here because it's about batteries and conserving stuff. I went to purchase 2 or maybe 4 AA batteries the other day for my new ear and nose trimmer that requires 1 AA battery. I figured Walmart would be a decent choice for them so in I went. The smallest package size was a 12 pack. For ~$3 more I could buy a 24 pack of Energizer AA's @ ~CDN$13. So reluctantly I purchased the 24 pack knowing full well that the 2 year shelf life would result in most of them being tossed in the garbage. Is this the new state of battery economics. We purchase hoarding amounts of batteries to satisfy the retail powers that be and to heck with the environment and the issue of battery recycling? I was going to select a Energizer recharge kit but that had 1300mAh cells and from experience a 2400mAh battery is required to be useful and I was not buying both packages of 1300mAh and 2400mAh rechargeable batteries for a hair trimmer. It seems batteries have become a new false sense of security and the economics of them are in a poor state of affairs. I am now looking for peeps that want a couple of free AA batteries just so I can get rid of them.
Yeah, good idea. I almost never think about Amazon for regular domestic items.You could have gotten 2800 mah AAs of the low drain type (loses 3% of the charge per year) and a good charger from Amazon or similar for less money. These work even in remotes so you'll probably never need new AA's for years.
For a lack of a better place to put this comment I am putting it here because it's about batteries and conserving stuff. I went to purchase 2 or maybe 4 AA batteries the other day for my new ear and nose trimmer that requires 1 AA battery. I figured Walmart would be a decent choice for them so in I went. The smallest package size was a 12 pack. For ~$3 more I could buy a 24 pack of Energizer AA's @ ~CDN$13. So reluctantly I purchased the 24 pack knowing full well that the 2 year shelf life would result in most of them being tossed in the garbage. Is this the new state of battery economics. We purchase hoarding amounts of batteries to satisfy the retail powers that be and to heck with the environment and the issue of battery recycling? I was going to select a Energizer recharge kit but that had 1300mAh cells and from experience a 2400mAh battery is required to be useful and I was not buying both packages of 1300mAh and 2400mAh rechargeable batteries for a hair trimmer. It seems batteries have become a new false sense of security and the economics of them are in a poor state of affairs. I am now looking for peeps that want a couple of free AA batteries just so I can get rid of them.
I try to order online as much as is possible locally but sometimes Amazon does pop up in the do list. I find it difficult to be distracted when online shopping. I research, determine need, source a solution and make the order. Presently I'm meal planning to ~6 weeks out. I attribute that to online shopping and personalized delivery to the door. I mostly shop not by choosing items on sale but by what I know I will eat. That req's some MOD's. I need more colors and more wet solid/crunchy veggies too. That requires more energy and time. It requires way more energy to commute to the store regularly for veggies'n fruits.I find this is even worse with food with super markets doing 'buy one get one free' deals. It's great if you're going to eat it, and if it is a staple like 2Kg of potatoes for the price of 1kg, two packs of pasta for the price of one or 10Kg of rice for the price of 5kg I'm all in but I find on a lot of things it just leads to accumulating stuff we won't eat and which gets thrown away. The thing is even though I know that I still get sucked in.
Seemingly the majority of motorists if the cars around here are typical. Don’t think it’s just EVs battery weight is a common factor.And who really needs an suv? 0,1%?
Iirc the largest producer of EVs has one of the best safety records. I think the weight is nothing to be concerned about, because we've had large differences in weight between gas cars too. Yes, it makes a difference, but its not that bad that you could say an ev is more dangerous than an ice car due to weight. The weight distribution plays a big part too. In battery cars its usually low to the ground giving them advantage of excellent handling, strength to protect passengers and no big engine means room in the front and back for big crumple zones. I'm quite sure that is the aim of many car manufacturers, ice included.Just read an article on the dangers posed by EVs in a crash. It said EVs are much heavy than equivalent gas powered vehicles, with extra mass you get more damage when in a collision. They give examples of relatively small SUVs weighing in at more than 5000 lb.
The article’s author finished by saying when it comes to collisions mass matters. There are very few old EVs around, how do they stack up against modern internal combustion engine cars?Iirc the largest producer of EVs has one of the best safety records. I think the weight is nothing to be concerned about, because we've had large differences in weight between gas cars too. Yes, it makes a difference, but its not that bad that you could say an ev is more dangerous than an ice car due to weight. The weight distribution plays a big part too. In battery cars its usually low to the ground giving them advantage of excellent handling, strength to protect passengers and no big engine means room in the front and back for big crumple zones. I'm quite sure that is the aim of many car manufacturers, ice included.
So a crash at any speed would be worse in a car with a higher mass. That’s the point the author was making.p = m * v
and of course
kinetic energy = 1/2*m*v^2
So... yeah, mass matters.
Velocity matters more, though.
speed kills.
View attachment 198995
yup, it is true that mass matters and not irrelevant. Velocity just matters more.So a crash at any speed would be worse in a car with a higher mass. That’s the point the author was making.
We had a 59 Biscayne when I was growing up, glad we didn't hit anything with it!yup, it is true that mass matters and not irrelevant. Velocity just matters more.
We're in violent agreement (as they say).
Speaking of which, you've doubtless seen this video -- there are other factors that, practically speaking, might matter even more than mass...
although, in fairness, I don't know offhand the relative masses of these two GM vehicles.