Shireroth

Starting that....If you don't follow, well go read the *starts singing* post in general....then come back here to begin reading analysis...It starts off with the alphabet...(grammar) well, that's not scientificeThen we get into the *xx/xy* stuff, that doesn't tell you much, except what is possibly being felt or thought...Okay, now take the letters from the alphabet:AGTCIn science, these letters stand for something...Which takes us to topics of chemistry, molecular biology....etc....However to start...perhaps a diagram to illustrate a precipitous result when mixing these letters, best presented using, what I like to call, "The Coupling Theory"...*ahem, clears throat*Coupling #1: APUpon mixing these two solutions (depending upon the id of the certain substances) a product results which is di-fold, equaling: ap and ap, respectively. The statistical analysis of the products results in a 100% match to the starting reagents.Coupling #2: PMUpon mixing these two solutions (depending upon the id of the certain substances) a product results which is uni-fold, equaling: m. Which raises a question of the purity of the product. Further tests are then required to test the statistical probability of the product being 100% pure. IF the product WAS pure, then the result would have been a clear pm. But, alas, that was not the case. Further testing of coupling #2, from what I have read before me, has shown that it is definitely not a pm, just an xm. Now, the "x" is in question. This being that upon this coupling the "M" portion was chemically complex in its composition. Meaning, that the "M" was not originally "pure" before the coupling with P. After review of the reagent/substrate "M", it was found that "M" was synthetic in form. Thus coming from several, I deduct, other couplings. For example, other product possibilities could be the following:MA = maMC = mcMD = mdMF = mfetc, etc, etc.....Again, in order to gain a 100% statistical purity of "m", then a sampling of A, C, D and F would need to be analyzed to see what exactly, mx is.Coupling #3: GJUpon mixing these two solutions (depending upon the id of the certain substances) a product results which is mono-fold, equaling: gj. The statistical analysis of the products results in a 100% match to the starting reagents.Now, I'll stop here for a second....and continue with this thread.

At this point in time, coupings #'s 1 and 3 are not in direct question in biochemical analysis.So, we'll take out the results with coupling #2 and subject to further analysis. Which would bring me to the physical environment and equipment used/utlized within the experiment.With further analysis of what I have read before me, this particular experiment included the following:substrate P was in a liquid statesubstrate M was in a solid statetemperature and pressure conditions are not clear, so that presents a problem, meaning depending upon the temperature and pressure the product, "m" could be either gaseous, solid or liquid.If solid, then the probablity of the "x" in the product "xm" could be "pm" thusly producing a 100% purity.If liquid, then the probability of the "x" in the proudct "xm" could be, as stated abovve, "pm", "am", "bm", "cm", "dm", or "fm". Then statistically this is inconclusive. Definitely impure.If gas, then the probability of the "x" in the product "xm" is definitely not "pm" thus the statistical result would be 0% purity.the equipment of the experiment is in question. The questions that have arisen are the following:sterilitysanitizationMost importantly, the main factor in determining the purity of the product "m" is what is called:activation energy (which encompasses the timing of the reaction in question)