Another question about phosphorus?
472110
DNA has phosphate sugars so no. ATP stands for adenotriphosphate so no. membranes consists of phospholipids. rna is the same as DNA in constituents with uracil base change and more oxygen.\n\nso none.\n\nin return for the answer can you let me know what you think of my essay...\n\nEvolutionary scientific discoveries unwittingly make the human creation in the book of Genesis feasible to the point of affirmation.\n\nIntroduction\n\nIn the beginning “male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1, 27) This statement has been contested ever since the Age of Enlightenment when human beings with their development of knowledge set about challenging God’s authority in the world around them. Immanuel Kant’s motto “Dare to know” really symbolises the dominant modernistic attitude that was and continues to be embraced by humanity. God has no problem with us gaining knowledge- he invented science and has got it to a perfect art seeing as he spoke all the necessary components into being. Indeed knowledge is God-given to the point that it is one of the fruits of the spirit. Besides, if God really wanted us to remain ignorant of the world he wouldn’t have given us the Word. I therefore want to emphasise that it is only when we think we got here on our own, without God that we come into dispute with God and the truth. But rejection is nothing new to God, who is neither surprised nor shocked by our choices or actions. Before God even created the world he had sent his son to die “it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him” (Isaiah 53, 10) and before he created the universe God knew we would “turn our backs on him and look(ed) the other way.” (Isaiah 53, 3). The fact that Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species caused some controversy and drove people to reject Jesus as the truth was not a ‘heavy blow’ for Him. For one thing, and I say this tongue-in-cheek, if God is anything like me he had probably gotten ‘bored’ of waiting. After all there’s quite a bit of waiting between before the Planck epoch (for those who are interested the Planck epoch is the time between zero and 10-43 seconds of the beginning of the universe) and 1859! Regardless of this publication and the later The Descent of Man (1871) His plan would still prevail over all His creation. The plan had already succeeded before we emerged on day six. Everything else had already been put in place: Jesus’ death and resurrection and all the animals and plants. EVERYTHING! God did NOT need our help or our approval and if he didn’t need it then, he certainly doesn’t need it NOW. What is interesting is that as God allows our knowledge to deepen and technology to improve evidence, particularly genetic and fossilised, appears to be pointing towards the feasibility if not the affirmation of the ‘story’ of Adam and Eve foretold in Genesis.\n\nAssumptions of the Author\n\nBefore I go any further I am making the following interpretations and/or assumptions:\n\n•Evolution (at least in humans) does occur but only within species. I believe that whilst other animals may evolve we wouldn’t as we are God’s chosen creation made in His image. He never changes and thus nor have (or will) we. Within our species implies that if women suddenly found blue-eyed men to be a turn-off generation after generation so that blue-eyed men could not pass on their seed, humans as a species would have less and eventually no blue eyed alleles but they would not in becoming predominately brown or green-eyed become a new species.\n•Evolution in definition is always ‘survival of the fittest’ where the most advantageous traits are passed on to the next generation. By dramatically becoming less hairy- so from having fur (ape) to being bare (Homo sapien)- the human race would have a severe disadvantage in that fur keeps you warm in a cold climate and cool in a hot one. Loss of fur is of course risky in a glacial-inter glacial planet cycle. The only reason for the fact we have no fu
869137
2H3PO4 + 3Ba(OH)2 ---> 6H2O + Ba (PO4)2 +  2Ba
696739
The chemicals are not correct\n\n2 (NH4)3PO4+3 Pb(NO3)2-> Pb3(PO4)2+6 NH4NO3?
982524
7.\nclick here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH
49026
Phosphorus comes from soil and rock and enters the biosphere through dissolution by water. Plantsabsorb this phosphorus as an essential nutritent for growth, and animals obtain it by eating plants. It then returns by decomposition and from animal waste products to the soil or to sediments that eventually become rock. Here is a good flow chart:\nhttp://www.lenntech.com/phosphorus-cycle.htm\n\nI can't help you with the song idea. It might be a good idea, but being a visual learner, I can't conceive of one.
695553
Agricultural Applications - radioactive tracers\n\n\nRadioisotopes can be used to help understand chemical and biological processes in plants. This is true for two reasons: 1)radioisotopes are chemically identical with other isotopes of the same element and will be substituted in chemical reactions and 2)radioactive forms of the element can be easily detected with a Geiger counter or other such device.\nExample:\nA solution of phosphate, containing radioactive phosphorus-32, is injected into the root system of a plant. Since phosphorus-32 behaves indentically to that of phosphorus-31, the more common and non-radioactive form of the element, it is used by the plant in the same way. A Geiger counter is then used to detect the movement of the radioactive phosphorus-32 throughout the plant. This information helps scientists understand the detailed mechanism of how plants utilized phosphorus to grow and reproduce.
844268
how were you measuring the pH? if it was a pH meter maybe it wasn't calibrated correctly/ recently?? or if it was with litmus paper.... maybe it went bad? I'm not sure if it can... check and see if there could have been an expiration date. i don't think temperature would have that drastic of an effect unless you did the experiment at pH7 and a seriously high (like about 60C) temp and the other ones at room temp or 37C (body temp)... sorry i cant help anymore then that, that's very strange!
396330
Another homework question.
866213
KH2 is potassium hydride. This is not absorbable by plants. The phosphate is though (PO4).\n\nGo find yourself a good N-P-K fertilizer.
500976
You can use either phosphoric acid solution (35%) or tannic acid solution (20%). Phosphates give a grey/black. Tannate gives a BLUE/BLACK. If you are trying to "parkerise" the surface there are a number of commercial parkerizing solutions available.
582819
a)\n\nIn many natural lakes, streams and wetlands the growth of plants and algae is largely determined by the amount of phosphorus available.  Phosphorus is the "growth limiting" nutrient.  As a result, any increase in phosphorus levels often leads directly to an increase in the growth of\nboth plants and algae.
145093
The stock name for this compound is ammonium phosphate.  \nThis is an ionic compound, which means that it is named with the names of the ions.  The cation (the first ion, positively charged) is NH4+, which is called ammonium.  The anion (the second ion, negatively charged) is called phosphate, PO4(3-).  \nNote that because the entire compound must be neutral, there are three ammonium (+) ions to balance out one 3- PO4 ion.
509251
Phosphorous does NOT react with water. It is stored under water. It reacts with oxygen in the air spontaneously, yielding P2O5. Both reactions follow the conservation of mass and energy.
781203
2H3PO4(aq) + 3Mn(OH)2(s)  --> Mn3(PO4)2(s) + 6H2O(l)
761929
ok...we have a deal. No Google :)\n\nI use MS Encarta as one of my "Resources" to get information or I go to the the Local library...still very nice to read or do research in a Public or school library.\n\n Sodium Phosphate was Discovered by Puller, in Crefeld and patented by him.\n\nHope my answer assists you. Chow
69413
56.4% of 220 g/mol is ___ grams of P /mol of oxide 1.\n\n43.6% of 284 g/mol is ___ grams of P /mol of oxide 2.\n\nAnalogous for the oxygen content.\n\nMultiply and round to the next whole number.\n\nOk. Oxygen has the molar mass 16. Seeing the difference between the two oxides is 64, oxide 2 holds 4 oxygen atoms more than oxide 1.\n\nLacking a convenient calculator nearby, I'll guess that 43.6%*220 g/mol yields 96 g/mol, or 6 oxygen atoms per mol of oxide 1. That leaves 124 g/mol phosphorous, with a molar mass of 31 this yields 4 atoms of P. P*4 + O*6, or P4O6, three-valent P.\n\nOxide 2 has 4 oxygen atoms more: P4O10, 5-valent P.
157730
I think FePO4 +O2 >>>>> Fe2O3 + PO2. balance it and solve it . n its simple stoichiometry.