Hydroboration of propene?
956728
1-Propanol. CH3CH=CH2 + B2H6 ===> CH3CH2CH2-BH2 ===> CH3CH2CH2-OH.\n\nDiborane always adds with the H on the more highly substituted carbon. This is the opposite of the Markovnikov rule during reaction with H2O and a little H2SO4, where the H goes to the less highly substituted carbon to give 2-propanol.
725093
To prevent the prepared Grignard reagent from hydrolyzing before it has a chance to react.\n\nThe Grignard reagent is prepared with R-Br\n\nR-Br + Mg --> R-MgBr\n\nThis is then usually reacted with a Carbonyl compound (C=O) and then hydrolyzed to the alcohol.  If water is present then:\n\nR-MgBr + H2O  -->  R-H  +  Mg+2  + Br-1  +  (OH)-1\n\nThis can also be written as:\n\nR-MgBr  +  H2O  -->  R-H  +  Mg(OH)Br
905536
react ... water gas that is carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas in presence of zinc oxide and Cr 2 O 3 under 200 atm pressure and 450 degree celcius temperature result will be  methanol .. this process is done on industrial scale as well first the purification and then the compression takes place and into the reaction chamber condensed and got the result ... ok wish u best of luck
116320
I am not 100% sure but it seems reasonable that by hydrolysis, you will cleave the bond from the carbonyl to the nitrogen.  Yielding, Acetic acid (CH3CO2H) + para-Phenylenediamine  ( H2N-Ph-NH2).
700367
1) Balance the reaction equation:\nPb(NO3)2  + 2 LiBr -> PbBr2 + 2LiNO3\n\n2) Calculate the amounts we start with\nPb(NO3)2 :  2.05 L * 0.0550 mol/L = 0.1128 mol\nLiBr : 1.52 L * 0.0618 mol/L = 0.0939 mol\nAs we need 2 moles of the latter for 1 mole of the former, the reaction is limited by the amount of LiBr\n\n3) Calculate the amount of PbBr2 produced\n0.0939 mol of LiBr will react with 0.470 mol of Pb(NO3)2 to produce 0.0470 mol of PbBr2. This is 0.0470 * (207.2 + 2* 79.9) =17.249 gram\n\n4) Calculate the yield\nThe yield is 15.784 / 17.249 = 91.51%
868179
2Rb + 2 H20 --> 2RbOH + H2
760981
Hmmmm...interesting...I didn't think you could really do that experiment WITHOUT making a mess! :)  (And isn't mess-making, next to bang-making, one of the main attractions of chemistry?)  I guess you could point the bottle away from you, at an angle, pop the Mentos into it with your fingers, then pull your hand away really quickly.
253931
In the production of esters:\n\nR1-OH + R2COOH -> R2COOR1 + H2O\n\nin this case BuOH + EtCOOH -> EtCOOBu + H2O\n\nThis reaction can be catalysed by acidifying (H+(aq)) the reactants.\n\nAn electron pair on the hydroxyl group [of the alkanol (Butanol)] attacks the delta positive carbon of the carbonyl group [alkanoic acid (Propanoic acid)]. I'm sure you can figure out the rest!
229018
1. Cyclohexanone could be brominated at alpha by acid and bromine gas, then tert-butoxide to eliminate HBr for cyclohex-2-enone.\n\n2. Make cyclohexanol by acid-catalysed addition of water, then oxidise to the ketone with Na2CrO4 in acid, then use the path described in 1. Alternatively, brominate at the allyl position with N-bromosuccinate and see if you can use the activated allyl position to attach an oxygen; one possibility is making a C=C double bond to another molecule of the 2-bromocyclohexene with lithium and elimination, then cleave into two molecules of cyclohex-2-enone with ozone and a reductive workup.
948313
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/catalysis/hydrolyse.html   \n                                                                                                    this will help ya
373023
Ultrasonic cleaners might be the best solution.\n\nHere is an excerpt from the source listed below: \n\nAlthough a range of possible alternative products is available today, experience has shown that substitution of TRI is not easy and even not feasible for a number of specific cases, either for technical or economical reasons. For all cases, substitution of TRI needs a thorough evaluation of all process aspects. For this reason we intend to work with the authorities in order to prevent a blanket implementation of forced substitution, and allow sustainable and continued safe use of TRI. \n\nThe alternatives you will probably consider first are the chlorinated solvents perchloroethylene (PER) and methylene chloride (MC). They match closest the technical features of TRI, such as non-flammability, high solvency power, a wide range of material compatibility and excellent drying and recycling properties.\n\nBeside PER and MC, you have probably also heard about other alternatives such as aqueous (water-based) alkaline systems, flammable solvents (e.g. hydrocarbons or modified alcohol based formulations), supercritical CO2 or hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), etc.\n\nIt is impossible to say definitively which technology is best. That depends on your specific application, on what you are cleaning, which materials you want to remove, the cleanliness required, the variability of the parts cleaned, the throughput to be achieved, the cycle times, etc. \n\nFor example, for the cleaning of parts between two water-based manufacturing steps (e.g. galvanising), aqueous systems may be better, since parts are put into water phase again later and no energy-intensive drying step to remove the water is required. \n\nIf you need to have very clean and dry surfaces (for coating or surface hardening, for example) and if you have a variety of different metals or blind holes, narrow distances and very fine orifices or a lot of residual oil to clean, hydrocarbons or aqueous systems may not clean and dry well enough. In these cases, chlorinated solvents will offer most often the best solution as they are compatible with most materials, have a high cleaning power, are easy to dry, don't leave residual films and are easy to recycle with high quality by distillation. In addition, chlorinated solvents are today best suited to be used in modern closed systems with minimal losses. Their ecological performance has very much increased and, when used in well-operated metal cleaning systems, they outperform aqueous cleaning as long as drying is required. This has been shown by a Life Cycle Analysis carried out by Ecobilan. \n\nPER comes closest to TRI in technical performance and is often the first choice candidate as an alternative to TRI. However, it shows clear inherent technical differences, which need to be taken into consideration. On one side, PER offers a lower volatility and therefore is advantageous to minimise emissions in closed equipment. On the other side, PER has a lower solvency power and is therefore normally used at a higher cleaning temperature to achieve similar performance. This may raise concerns regarding the compatibility with specific metal working fluids and temperature-sensitive parts. \n\nMethylene chloride (MC) shows excellent cleaning properties already at low temperatures, favouring the cleaning of temperature sensitive parts. However, its high volatility makes emission control more difficult and requires special equipment.\n\nHydrofluorocarbons (HFC) and hydrofluorocarbon ethers (HFCE) are very expensive and show very limited solvency power. A thorough evaluation of the global warming potential is also required to choose the adequate product.
668417
no, its propanoic acid - able to form h-bonds with water molecules and become dissolved.  propanal can also form h-bonds, but since propanoic acid has some delocalised electrons, attraction is greater.
403780
GHB got a bum rap.  it's just more nonsense hysteria to justify the bloated budgets of the police state.\n\nThat aside, you don't convert beta to gamma.  suggesting an elimination failed to consider that the double bond formed will be more stable in conjugation with the carbonyl group; you'll get crotonic acid.  Subsequent hydrolysis would give you a mixture of alpha and beta.\n\nyou'd have much better luck trying to figure out a way to do it starting with GABA.\n\nOf course, if you have to ask, you lack the skilz.
724975
Methane can be produced by the hydrogenation of carbon or carbon oxide, by the action of water on aluminium carbide, or by heating sodium ethanoate with alkali.
636594
while the answer above is right i thought i'd add to it.\n\nThe reason you can't do a direct tri bromonation is that once you add on a Br, two add on another two is a very, very slow reaction.  Therefore you need to add in an activating group.  CH3 is a good activating group, but NH3 is better, a bit more time consuming to attach to the benzene but you won't have to heat your reaction up as much later.\n\nIf you use NH3 this will create 1-amino-2,4,6-tribromobenzene, then you can hydrolyse to get rid of the NH3.  In the lab i do it that way, but you can also do it the above way.
136276
Am I missing something?\n\nThere would be no reaction because nothing in methyl cyclohexane is going to change.\n\nIf you meant methyl-benzene (e.g. Xylene), then you might get a sulfonation at the para position, like the one person mentioned. Xylene might be activated enough to not require a Lewis acid catalyst for the reaction.
900980
A 1,2-diol would form.\n\nEthene would form ethan-1,2-diol, (CH2OH)2.