Effect of an ancillary ligand on single helix-double helix interconversion in copper complexes. Copper(I)-water bond

Reaction of Cu(ClO(4))(2)center dot 6H(2)O with the 1:2 condensate of benzildihydrazone and 2-acetylpyridine, in methanol in equimolar ratio yields a green compound which upon recrystallisation from 1:1 CH(2)Cl(2)-C(6)H(6) mixture affords [CuL(H(2)O)](ClO(4))(2)center dot 1/2C(6)H(6). The complex crystallises in the space group P-1 with a = 8.028(11) angstrom, b = 12.316(17) angstrom, c = 18.14(3) angstrom, alpha = 97.191(10)degrees, beta = 94.657(10)degrees and gamma = 108.039(10)degrees. It is single helical with the metal having a distorted trigonal bipyramidal N(4)O coordination sphere. The acid dissociation constant of the Cu(I) complex in CH(3)CN is 3.34 +/- 0.19. The X band EPR spectrum of the compound is rhombic with g(1) = 2.43, g(2) = 2.10 g(3) = 2.02 and A(1) = 79.3 x 10(-4) cm(-1). The Cu(II/I) potential of the complex in CH(2)Cl(2) at a glassy carbon electrode is 0.43 V vs SCE. It is argued that the copper-water bond persists in the corresponding copper(I) species. Its implications on the single helix-double helix interconversion in copper helicates are discussed. DFT calculations at the B3LYP/6-311G** level shows that the binding energy of water in the single helicol live-coordinate copper(I) species [CuL(H(2)O)](+) is similar to 40 kJ mol(-1).

On the regulation of populations of mammals, birds, fish, and insects

A key unresolved question in population ecology concerns the relationship between a population's size and its growth rate. We estimated this relationship for 1780 time series of mammals, birds, fish, and insects. We found that rates of population growth are high at low population densities but, contrary to previous predictions, decline rapidly with increasing population size and then flatten out, for all four taxa. This produces a strongly concave relationship between a population's growth rate and its size. These findings have fundamental implications for our understanding of animals' lives, suggesting in particular that many animals in these taxa will be found living at densities above the carrying capacity of their environments.

Synthesis, structure and electrochemical properties of some thiosemicarbazone complexes of ruthenium

Reaction of salicylaldehyde thiosemicarbazone (L-1), 2-hydroxyacetophenone thiosemicarbazone (L-2) and 2-hydroxynapthaldehyde thiosemicarbazone (L-3) with [Ru(dmso)(4)Cl-2] affords a family of three dimeric complexes (1), (2) and (3) respectively. Crystal structure of the complex (3) has been determined. In these complexes, each monomeric unit consists of one ruthenium center and two thiosemicarbazone ligands, one of which is coordinated to ruthenium as O,N,S-donor and the other as N,S-donor forming a five-membered chelate ring. Two such monomeric units remain bridged by the sulfur atoms of the O,N,S-coordinated thiosemicarbazones. Due to this sulfur bridging, the two ruthenium centers become so close to each other, that a ruthenium-ruthenium single bond is also formed. All the complexes are diamagnetic in the solid state and in dimethylsulfoxide solution show intense absorptions in the visible and ultraviolet region. Origin of these spectral transitions has been established from DFT calculations. Cyclic voltammetry on the complexes shows two irreversible ligand oxidations on the positive side of SCE and two irreversible ligand reductions on the negative side.

Should system dynamics be described as a 'hard' or 'deterministic' systems approach?

This paper explores the criticism that system dynamics is a ‘hard’ or ‘deterministic’ systems approach. This criticism is seen to have four interpretations and each is addressed from the perspectives of social theory and systems science. Firstly, system dynamics is shown to offer not prophecies but Popperian predictions. Secondly, it is shown to involve the view that system structure only partially, not fully, determines human behaviour. Thirdly, the field's assumptions are shown not to constitute a grand content theory—though its structural theory and its attachment to the notion of causality in social systems are acknowledged. Finally, system dynamics is shown to be significantly different from systems engineering. The paper concludes that such confusions have arisen partially because of limited communication at the theoretical level from within the system dynamics community but also because of imperfect command of the available literature on the part of external commentators. Improved communication on theoretical issues is encouraged, though it is observed that system dynamics will continue to justify its assumptions primarily from the point of view of practical problem solving. The answer to the question in the paper's title is therefore: on balance, no.