Lasting chemiluminescence of 3-indoleglyoxylyl chloride and its enhancement.

The chemiluminescence (CL) intensities of various indole derivatives substituted with a glyoxylyl group at the 3-position and a hydroxyl group at the 5-position of the indole ring were compared upon the addition of H2O2 in alkaline media. The CL intensities of 3-indoleglyoxylyl chloride, 3-indoleglyoxylic acid, 5-hydroxyindole and 5-benzyloxyindole in CH3CN were 5.9-, 48-, 5.9- and 3.3-fold stronger than that of 3-methylindole. A lasting CL of 3-indoleglyoxylyl chloride was found. Under appropriate conditions, the CL emission reached a maximum within 10 min after the addition of H2O2 in the presence of NaOH, and the intensity was retained for 25 min. One of the final products via the CL reaction of 3-indoleglyoxylyl chloride was indole-3-carboxylic acid. 3-Indoleglyoxylyl chloride emitted light by decompositions via both dioxetane and dioxetanedione. An enhancement effect of beta-cyclodextrin and bovine serum albumin on the CL of 3-indoleglyoxylyl chloride was also found.     

Structural hierarchy of rock masses and the mechanisms of its formation

The formation mechanisms for the structural hierarchy in geological media are discussed. It is shown that the formation of such a hierarchy is caused by certain external and internal circumstances. The first ones consist in the fact that, because of external actions, the Earth’s poles continuously execute the translational and rotational motions responsible for a regular structure of rock fracture and for the appearance of the scale factor √2. The second ones consist in the fact that, under the action of many random factors and because of external actions, during the formation of geological media there appear dissipative structures and, hence, some self-similar fractal structures are formed.     

Reply to Nathan: How to reconstruct the causal argument

Nicholas Nathan tries to resist the current version of the causal argument for sense-data in two ways. First he suggests that, on what he considers to be the correct re-construction of the argument, it equivocates on the sense of proximate cause. Second he defends a form of disjunctivism, by claiming that there might be an extra mechanism involved in producing veridical hallucination, that is not present in perception. I argue that Nathan’s reconstruction of the argument is not the appropriate one, and that, properly interpreted, the argument does not equivocate on proximate cause. Furthermore, I claim that his postulation of a modified mechanism for hallucinations is implausibly ad hoc.