As of this date in the University of Iowa Science Library, if you type in " The Decarboxylation of Fatty Acids" in the library computer the two chemistry journal articles will show up and one can print them off to llook at at ones leisure. I added the decomposition temperature of sodium salts of carboxylic acids as that may not be in every organic chemistry book one reads.
I have consulted an attorney about applying for a patent, but was told that there was no way to patent a chemical reaction. I was told that the only way to protect it was as a trade secret.
I have not had complete success in running this reaction. I have had success two times by accident. After a long period of time I became discouraged. I cried out to God and asked him to let it work if it was going to work. It then worked twice in a row and then it stopped working. As evidence that it worked the only things in the reaction flask were soap (sodium salt of a fatty acid), a small inorganic salt, and distilled water. On heating the soap became liquid which did not freeze when I put the flask in my refrigerator. The only thing that it could possibly be was petroleum. I regret that I did not get a GC/MS analysis performed at that time as that is proof that you would accept.
On consulting a local chemist, I told him that my soap was greasy. That indicated that I had not removed all of the glycerol from the soap which is necessary for the reaction to work.
The chemist suggested an old method of purification called dialysis. I will use that to separate the soap from the glycerol the next time I perform this experiment. I will not be able to make soap until April when it warms up. My new wife has breathing problems and I am concerned that the small amount of fumes from the hot lye solution would hurt her,
If the chemist on this website does not have access to a college library with a computer or Chem Abstracts, I would be happy to post all pertainent information about the 2 articles so that he may access them. I think that it is interesting that the other atheists that I communicated with would not even consider looking at these two scientific journal articles. They clearly had no respect for science and reason.
My purpose in sharing these articles is to show that one cannot always trust scientists. The college where the first paper was done gives evidence as to why they wanted this experiment to fail. In my organic chemistry textbooks written in the 1970âs this failed experiment was referred to. I think that it is likely that it is referred to in modern textbooks as on the surface this appears to be a likely way to produce petroleum.
I have three other examples that indicate that one cannot always trust scientists. I have a fourth one that is up to date concerning covid. I will share these at a later dates. Thank you for getting back to me and being courteous. If you know of a chemist on this site, Please refer him or her to me and I will share specific information. I wish you a good day.
Everyone is welcome. We have moderators. Behaviors will get a reaction, not beliefs. Just defend yourself with data and respect the opinions of others.
The scientific methods are designed so itâs the data, evidence, and methods that can be trusted, not individuals. Experts help interpret and if they disagree, then we need better data.
The closest thing CFI has to investigating is the paranormal challenge. Since you prayed to get your results, they might look at it
As Annie Laurie Gaylor, of the FFRF says, âNothing fails like prayer.â Keep rolling the dice and youâll soon find that prayer is nothing more than the luck of the draw. Science, on the other hand, is more reliable.
Hello, my name is Jonathan Gresham. I recently became a GED graduate and now aim to become some sort of writer. However, science is very interesting to me. I particularly like phylogenetics and taxonomy but also evolutionary biology in general. I do not know a lot about these fields but I have bought some textbooks concerning them. I have one on biology another on the phylogeny of primates, and a third one on genetics. I have a fourth textbook being delivered tomorrow on biogeography.
I love reading. I read 100 pages of God is Not Great last night and aim to finish it only to tackle either a book by the great Richard Dawkins or one of those textbooks. But I primarily aim to write about my reading experiences: things Iâve learned and explain a few things to people who donât know that which I will know then.
Welcome Jonathan.
It sounds like you are well on your way to âdiscoveryâ and be assured, wonders will reveal themselves to you as you get deeper into the âway things workâ.
Allow me to recommend a few videos that will give you some fundamentals on the science of evolution of minerals, eventually leading to abiogenesis.
Iâll start with this wonderful informative , yet entertaining lecture by Dr. Robert Hazen
Start viewing the video @ 12:00 to avoid a lengthy introduction.
After that, a whole new world will open and allow for greater understanding of the âemergenceâ of complex organisms and life itself.
I have changed my mind on posting detailed sources of the two scie6tific articles. I will only talk with a biologist or a chemist. In the book form of Chem Abstracts one can look under the heading of decarboxylation and the subheading of fatty acids to find the articles. I will say that one is from the 1940âs and the second is from the 1960;s. If one is in a modern library one can type in âThe decarboxylation of fatty acidsâ to the search engine to find the articles. I learned how to use Chem Abstracts in college sophomore chemistry in the 1970âs so it seems likely that a science student would know how to access these articles using one of these two methods.
The weather has gotten much warmer here in Iowa. Therefore I will perform the first step in this synthesis which is making soap, tomorrow. Within three weeks I will either have my products or I wonât. If I have it, I probably wonât have GC/MS analysis by that time, but I will have it soon.
As I said, the soap must be free from glycerol. Up until now I have tried separating the soap from the glycerol using a saturated salt solution which is the standard method in modern textbooks. That did not do the job so that may be another indication that science books are not always reliable.
I will post again when I have purified the soap with dialysis. I know now that the soap must be hard and brittle and not greasy to give evidence that it is free from glycerol.
I have other evidence that scientists cannot always be trusted. For now I ask a biologist or chemist to look up the two articles with the guidance that I have given. I ask you to note the location of the college where the first article was written. I believe that it will show a motive as to why they did this experiment that was obviously designed to fail. Good bye for now.
I donât understand the point of having others track down these articles. Why not simply present your research, show your sources, then data from your work?
I have a feeling he needed advise more so than announcing a discovery.
Greetings to all.
I was moved to join because of the depressing and deflating effect that religion has on American society, schools, and politics. I now have resources to help counter that. Rather than preaching to the choir, my inclination is to support ârecruitmentâ (for lack of a better term) of impressionable minds (ages 17-23 or so). Let them know that atheism/agnosticism is valid, moral, and growing more acceptable and prevalent. Can folks recommend the best programs/funds for such an effort?
Thanks.
Vito
It is warming up in Iowa so I may be able to perform the first step of my experiment sooner. I promise to post the results if the experiment succeeds or fails. When I was visiting Ray Comfortâs Atheist Central facebook page, one atheist recommended reading Richard Dawkins book, âThe Greatest Show on Earth.â He said that this book would provide evidence for evolution. I read the book and wanted to make some comments on it. I was ridiculed as they believed that I could not critique it because I was not a biologist. From this it was clear that though many of the atheists claimed to be biologists, they were not scientists and had no respect for science. When I got my chemistry degree, I was required to take considerable course work in mathematics, biology and physics. If one studies the history of science, one will find that scientists of many disciplines worked on a scientific problem each scientist from his own perspective. My primary comment concerned Richard Dawkins use of algebra. Many if not all scientist use algebra. Anyone who uses algebra clearly assumes some things on general consensus belief without evidence, proof or reason. In other words if one uses algebra, some things one takes on faith. I will test you to see if anyone on this site knows algebra and can verify that this is true. If no one can answer this, it is safe to say that no one knows basic science. I will wait a few days and then come back to answer my statement if no one else can.
I need evidence that other people on this site are scientists. I provided the key words so that one could look up the articles at a college or university. This ability should be had by anyone with two years of biology or chemistry. If one cannot access these articles with this information, it is evidence that they do not have two years of study in biology or chemistry and they are not scientists, but rather, they are pretenders.
Hmm. I thought I responded earlier. It sounds like The Secular Student Alliance might be a fit.
These tests you creating depend on your assumptions. Besides, I never claimed to be a scientist, but anyone can use the methods.
[quote="kuonrat]
When I got my chemistry degree, I was required to take considerable course work in mathematics, biology and physics. If one studies the history of science, one will find that scientists of many disciplines worked on a scientific problem each scientist from his own perspective.
Letâs analyze what you have to say.
[quote="kuonrat]
My primary comment concerned Richard Dawkins use of algebra.
Letâs begin with establishing Dawkins credentials.
What is Richard Dawkins most famous for?
Richard is a prominent biological scientist, having published bestselling books on genetics and evolution, including The Selfish Gene (1976), The Blind Watchmaker (1986) â with the latter winning a number of awards. He set up the Richard Dawkins Foundation in 2006 to promote the cause of removing religion from science.
Fellow Detail Page | Royal Society
[quote="kuonrat]
Many if not all scientist use algebra. Anyone who uses algebra clearly assumes some things on general consensus belief without evidence, proof or reason.
That is an incomprehensible statement.
[quote="kuonrat]
In other words if one uses algebra, some things one takes on faith.
That is just a false statement and reveals a misunderstanding of the role algebra plays in mathematics.
[quote="kuonrat]
I will test you to see if anyone on this site knows algebra and can verify that this is true. If no one can answer this, it is safe to say that no one knows basic science.
OK , I have reduced what you just posted . This is the condensed version;
[quote="kuonrat]
âIn other words if one uses algebra, some things one takes on faith.â
âI will test you to see if anyone on this site knows algebra.â
âIf no one can answer this, it is safe to say that no one knows basic science,â
Do you realize that you are debating yourself? If you want to discuss faith v science, you may want to begin with some critical thinking.
A Little Understanding of Mathematics and its Branches
Last updated date: 22nd Mar 2023
Mathematics means âknowledge, study, learningâ. It includes the study of topics such as arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and mathematical analysis. It has no generally accepted definition.
Several civilizations in China, India, Egypt, Central America, and Mesopotamia equally contributed to mathematics. The counting system was first developed by the Sumerians. Mathematicians developed arithmetic, which includes basic operations, like addition, subtraction, multiplication, fractions, and square roots.
As civilizations developed, mathematicians began to work with geometry, which deals with the areas and volumes to make angular measurements. Geometry is used everywhere from home construction to fashion and interior design. Moreover, geometry is that branch of mathematics, which is concerned with spatial relationships among several objects, the shape of single objects, and the properties of space surrounding us.
Geometry is considered as one of the oldest branches of mathematics while the term is derived from the Greek language as geo means earth and material means measurement, meaning earth measurement.
However, after a certain point, people began to realize that geometry does not need to be limited to the study of rigid three-dimensional objects or plane and flat surfaces, but can be put to use or represented with the most abstract images and thoughts.
Besides, the major branches of geometry consist of analytic geometry, Euclidean geometry, projective geometry, non-Euclidean geometries, topology, and differential geometry. Nevertheless, students do not need to go in-depth about all these concepts.
Now, letâs discuss a bit about Algebra. It is that branch of mathematics where the students usually use symbols, letters of the alphabet to get the solutions to the given problems. Now talking about its history, it can be divided into three parts. The first one is the written stage where just words were used, the second stage included the shortened or syncopated stage where symbols came into existence in the equations.
The third stage is the modern or symbolic stage.
Moreover, Algebra was invented in the ninth century by a Persian mathematician, Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi. He also developed quick methods for multiplying and dividing numbers, which are known as algorithms. The study of algebra meant mathematicians were solving linear equations and systems, as well as quadratics solutions.
Arithmetics â Numbers and Operations
Arithmetic is one of the first few subjects that you learned in lower grades. It deals with numbers and basic operations on them. It is the foundation for studying other branches of mathematics.
Arithmetic originated from the Greek word arithmos, which is a branch of mathematics that consists of the study of counting numbers and the properties of the traditional operations on them such as addition(+), subtraction(-), multiplication(x), and division(). Arithmetic is an elementary part of number theory.
In addition to basic operations, this subject also includes more advanced operations, such as percentage, square roots, exponentiation, logarithmic functions, trigonometric functions, and many more.
** The four basic operations addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are commonly referred to as the four arithmetic operations.**
Geometry-Shapes
Geometry is the study of shapes. It is broadly classified into two types: plane geometry and solid geometry. Plane geometry deals with two-dimensional figures like squares, circles, rectangles, triangles, and many more. Whereas Solid geometry deals with the study of three-dimensional shapes like cube, cuboid, cylinder, cone, sphere, and many more.
The study of this shape is needed to find lengths, widths, area, volume, perimeter, and many more terms.
In mathematics, we need specific terms again and again to solve problems. It becomes difficult to write the full terms repeatedly, hence the shortcuts for these terms are discovered and it is called a symbol.
Algebra
Algebra is one of the branches of Mathematics that deals with variables and numbers. A combination of constants and variables connected by the signs of the fundamental operation of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division is called an algebraic expression. Various parts of an algebraic expression that are separated by the signs of + or - are called the terms of the expression. An algebraic expression is defined as a sum, difference, product, or quotient of constants and variables.
It really appears that you do not understand the generic mathematics contained in algebra.
And the universe is a mathematical object, that we have been able to âdecipherâ bit by bit, until our applied symbolic mathematics was able to manifest a particle than cannot exist in our dimensions, namely the Higgs boson.
Via applied mathematics in the Cern collider, we asked the universal spacetime to produce a boson and because we asked the question with the right mathematics, the universe answered the question with the momentary production of a boson, which then promptly decayed into smaller parts and disappeared.
My own definition is that Mathematics is the way the universe deterministically processes relational values (information) via logical guiding equations (functions).
Thereâs a shorter essay somewhere on this forum about reason being the foundation of knowledge. That is, if you are questioning reason, then you are using reason to do it.
But, I found this instead, exploring a wide variety thoughts on how we know what we know. Probably something our new friend could spend some time with
I think that it would be good to tell you a little bit about myself. I did not become a Christian until I was 18. When I was much younger, I modeled my beliefs on two articles. I read an English translation on one of the lectures of Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine. The first line of his lecture was, âListen to no one, not even to me!â He then went on to give his lecture. The second article I think I found in chess books which I read many of: "Do not believe what you are told. Examine, prove, verify. I think that you would have called me a skeptic at that time. That is why I was so stunned when I took algebra in my first year of high school. On the first few pages of the textbook, I read the axioms on which algebra is founded. The book said that the axioms could not be proved. They were just generally agreed upon. In other words they were taken on faith. That was over 50 years ago and I can still remember how stunned I was when I read that.
Since becoming a Christian, I have added a few Bible beliefs to my creed.
âProve all things. Hold fast to that which is good.â âLet us reason together.â âDo not bear false witness.â
I will admit that I have been wrong before. I have made false assumptions in chemistry, my field which I have had to correct. I am glad to have found someone on this website who knows about science. So far I have not found someone with a knowledge of biology or chemistry who can look up articles in the chemical literature with the same keywords that I use. If you would refer someone with these skills to me, I would greatly appreciate it. I believe that God created science in the beginning. I realize that you do not believe that and that is ok. God gave me a vision that I could perform a certain chemical reaction. I looked in my textbook and the book said that the reaction was not practical. The thought kept coming to mind so I decided to look at the original chemical literature. The original chemical literature was designed to fail. There was no way that it could have not failed. I decided to search the literature. I believe that God provided a source in the University of Iowa Chemistry Botany Library. The library was not well funded at that time and many old chemistry books were in the stacks. I found books that gave clues on how this reaction could be run. I finally found a way to do the reaction twice and then it stopped working. After consulting with a university chemist, I found that the purification method that I used for my intermediate did not completely separate the soap from the glycerol. He suggested another method. Tomorrow it will be over 50 degrees in Iowa and I will be able to make soap in my garage. The last two steps I will perform in my home. I will either confirm the reaction in two weeks or I will have to admit failure. Either way I will report it on this site. I thank you very much for your comments. Have a great day!
[quote=âkuonrat1910, post:59, topic:11â]
The book said that the axioms could not be proved. They were just generally agreed upon. In other words, they were taken on faith. That was over 50 years ago and I can still remember how stunned I was when I read that.
Since becoming a Christian, I have added a few Bible beliefs to my creed.
Axioms do not need to be proved, they are self-evident and can be used as a premise on which a scientific argument can rest.
H2O
Even as an H2O molecule consists of 2 elements, large quantities of H2O have 3 emergent states; Liquid, solid, and gaseous, dependent on temperature and pattern density.
This does not need to be proved, it is self-evident as we deal with it every day of our lives.
OTOH , âfaithâ implies belief in something for which there is no evidence, yet is assumed to be true which of course is not scientific at all.
b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Ancient Greek word áŒÎŸÎŻÏΌα, meaning âthat which is thought worthy or fitâ or âthat which commends itself as evidentâ. Wikipedia
[quote="kuonrat]
I believe that God created science in the beginning. I realize that you do not believe that and that is ok. God gave me a vision that I could perform a certain chemical reaction. I looked in my textbook and the book said that the reaction was not practical. The thought kept coming to mind so I decided to look at the original chemical literature. The original chemical literature was designed to fail. There was no way that it could have not failed. I decided to search the literature. I believe that God provided a source in the University of Iowa Chemistry Botany Library
Well, no, It can be said that a lot of practical science was invented and developed by monks.
Actually it was the Sumerians who discovered the process of saponification of sheepâs wool for weaving.
But I am confident that monks in monasteries were very early in the use of soap for personal hygiene. And that brings an automatic association of soap as a âgift of Godâ.
A few more âinventionsâ by monks:
Modern double-entry bookkeeping was formalized by Fra Luca Pacioli.
Today the Vatican has a science department, the âPontifical Academy of Sciencesâ
Wikipedia](Pontifical Academy of Sciences - Wikipedia)
[quote="kuonrat]
After consulting with a university chemist, I found that the purification method that I used for my intermediate did not completely separate the soap from the glycerol. He suggested another method. Tomorrow it will be over 50 degrees in Iowa and I will be able to make soap in my garage. The last two steps I will perform in my home. I will either confirm the reaction in two weeks or I will have to admit failure. Either way I will report it on this site. I thank you very much for your comments. Have a great day!
Who Discovered Soap? What to Know About the Origins of the Life-Saving Substance
The first known recipe for soap calls for approximately one quart of oil and six quarts of potash (potassium leeched from wood ash). According to Rasmussen this would have combined to create an impure but useful liquid soap. Using this crude formula to produce her ashy, greasy water, Nini would have made the most lifesaving medical product ever developed by humankind.
Since I have discovered from a message I received that this page is populated by humanists and not scientists, I have decided to post my two articles and textbook references so that those who can look up scientific journal articles can read them. I looked for my copies of the articles, but could not find them. However I believe that I have enough of the details so someone else can look them up. The textbook I used was âOrganic Chemistryâ by Morrison and Boyd, 3rd edition. What I want you to look at is the chapter on carboxylic acids and the section titled âsalts of carboxylic acids.â In it it states that it is not practical to decarboxylate salts of carboxylic acids. Almost everyone accepts that without consulting the original literature. In other words they take it on faith. However when God gave me the vision that I could convert fats into petroleum, I did not stop with this statement, but consulted the original literature. The first article was in the Journal of the American Chemical Society. The title of the article was, âThe decarboxylation of fatty acids.â The authors were Thomas Oakwood and Maxine Miller. I do not remember the year for sure, but I believe it was 1948. I will continue to go through my papers to find the articles and give you the exact date of publication and the page number in the journal.
The first thing I noticed in the article was that none of the carboxylic acids studied were fatty acids. The carbon chains were just a few carbons long. In the chapter on fats in the textbook that I mentioned, it takes a chain of about 10-12 carbons to be considered a fatty acid. Still that was not a big problem and it would not affect the chemistry. The reaction in the article was between individual fatty acids and sodalime between 360 and 390 degrees centigrade. That indicated a serious problem. According to the textbook article that I cited, sodium salts of fatty acids decompose between 300-400 degrees centigrade with the decomposition temperature dependent on the rate of heating. Thus it was clear to me that the fatty acids would have decomposed even without sodalime being present. Thus the experiment was invalid. This information was confirmed by a PhD. chemist from the University of Iowa.
The second article was from The Journal of Chemical Education. The title of the article was âThe Decarboxylation of Fatty Acids.â The subheading was âTextbook Errorsâ The author was Jerry March. I think the publication year was 1964. I will confirm that when I find the articles again in my papers. This article cites the first article as proof that the decarboxylation of fatty acids was not practical.
However as I have said my opinion was confirmed by a University chemist.
I definitely know that I have gotten the reaction to work twice. I believe that the problems that I had most of the time was that I did not completely remove the glycerol from the soap as I found out from another chemist that salting out the raw soap was not an effective way to remove glycerol from soap. I will make soap today. Friday and Saturday I will purify the soap using dialysis. Monday I will perform the second step. By next Wednesday I will report my success or failure to you.
To close, on consultation with a second chemist he verified that the article in the Journal of the American Chemical Society was invalid. Therefore students who believed the statements in the textbook I mentioned and in every organic chemistry textbook that I read took it on faith without evidence. That is everyone who has ever studied organic chemistry. By next Wednesday I will either have experimental evidence again or I will admit failure to you.
The fact that you do experimentation is heartily encouraged.
Looking forward to your results.