The Periodic Table - 2016-09-29 (page 1 of 2)

« first day (1617 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2771 days later) »

user228700

1:50 AM

@orthocresol No no, I was wondering why there is a difference b/w (l) and (aq) in the first place, especially with regard to water. For other substances, it is of course different because (l) represents its unadulterated, pure liquid form, where as (aq) represents its mixture w/ water. But why do we make this distinction when talking about water itself?

4:29 AM

@KaumudiHarikumar I have never seen H2O(aq), for what it's worth. It should always be (l). And there is no reason to make a distinction because it makes no difference to the system.

@KaumudiHarikumar because the solvent is water...

user228700

4:56 AM

@orthocresol OK. To calculate the $K_a$ of water(for its self-ionisation), must we include water as well?

user228700

@DHMO Okay..? Can you please elaborate?

5:17 AM

@KaumudiHarikumar uhhhhhhh... I am not sure about that. Conventionally yes, you do, and you get a pKa of 15.7. However I am not very convinced by that. There should be some question on SE somewhere, I'll help you search.

I have seen quite a few different arguments, so it is a little controversial.

user228700

@orthocresol :/ Hm. OK, thanks, I'll go search...

user228700

5:45 AM

@orthocresol I read @ringo's answer here:

user228700

3

Q: How to calculate Ka for hydronium and Kb for hydroxide?

I am wondering how to calculate the $K_a$ for hydronium, $H_3O^+$, and the $K_b$ for hydroxide. Because hydronium undergoes the equilibrium $\ce{H_3O^+(aq) + H_2O (l) <=> H_2O (l) + H_3O^+ (aq)}$ , isn't the constant exactly 1? (And the same thing for hydroxide?) However, Wikipedia gives the...

acid-base equilibrium ph

user228700

But I was unable to understand the reasoning behind neglecting one mole of $H_2O$ and considering the other...

13

Q: What is the pKa of the hydronium, or oxonium, ion (H3O+)?

Although the wikipedia page on Hydronium indicates a $\mathrm{p}K_\text{a}$ of −1.74, I noticed in the discussion of this page that the subject seems debated (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydronium#pKa.3F) since alternative (apparently more rigorous) reasoning leads to $\mathrm{p}K_\text...

physical-chemistry acid-base ph theoretical-chemistry

The one you linked was marked as a duplicate of this. I think this is a better argument.

However, that's just my opinion. I don't want to pass it off as an authoritative answer.

user228700

@orthocresol A better argument than the one that Ringo gave?

Yeah.

5:50 AM

@KaumudiHarikumar I think this is a somewhat technical point relating to exactly how you define the dissociation constant for an acid.

user228700

@JohnRennie OK..?

In real like we only ever deal with $K_w$. I have spent many happy hours writing chemical engineering software for modelling ionic mixtures, and only ever used $K_w$.

And $K_w$ only considers $[H^+]$ and $[OH^-]$.

user228700

@JohnRennie Hm, I see...

Water is a bit of a special case because it is both an acid and a base i.e. it dissociates to both protons and hydroxide.

So it has a $K_a$ and a $K_b$ that are the same thing.

user228700

But in all these questions, they use the equation $H_3O^{+}$ + $H_2O$ →← $H_3O^{+}$ + $H_2O$

user228700

5:55 AM

(→← is supposed to be the double arrow, sorry :P)

If you're going to define a $K_a$ as the equilbrium constant for $HA \ce{<=>} H^+ + OH^-$ then I suppose the $K_a$ for water should include $[H_2O]$ otherwise it's just the same as $K_w$.

$\ce{<=>}$ $\ce{<=>}$

But this seems a bit of a pointless exercise when everyone only ever uses $K_w$ anyway.

Yeah agreed - which is how the 15.7 number came about.

@orthocresol thanks, we humble physicists don't know these subtleties :-)

Should I wrap the whole expression in \ce{} ?

5:57 AM

@JohnRennie yeap - that would put all the chemicals upright and save you the hassle of ^ and _

user116211

@orhto, I mentioned about \mhchem to @john; but his didn't work.

Orhto?? Who's that??

user228700

@JohnRennie Yeah, that makes sense but not entirely; there's also the question of "OK. It's like this. Do I just accept it?" If that's the case, I'm really scared that I might run into trouble when doing problems. Also, what about that equation I gave above? People use that to say that $K_a$=1!

Hmm, i don't know how mathjax works in chat. So I have nothing to offer. Sorry.

Orhtocresol - a ittle known isomer :-)

Well for the equation: $$\ce{H3O+ + H2O <=> H2O + H3O+}$$ the equilibrium constant is obviously one.

(did that render OK?)

user228700

6:00 AM

@JohnRennie But what kind if equation is that?

@JohnRennie Yeah, that's perfect.

10

Q: Why is methanol more acidic than water?

Methanol is slightly more acidic than water. Their $\mathrm{p}K_\mathrm{a}$ values, in water, are $15.5$ and $15.7$, respectively. All other aliphatic alcohols, however, are less acidic than water. Is the following reasoning correct? This is my best rationalization; is there anything better or ...

acid-base water

This is the question I remember. Those comments..

user228700

@JohnRennie Mobile, so rendering not possible.

@KaumudiHarikumar Its the equation for a proton hopping between water molecules. That isn't how I would define $K_a$.

user228700

@JohnRennie Yes, OK.

user228700

So, wait. What am I supposed to do? My textbook decided that they would half-assedly introduce the concept of equilibrium to us, without telling (ugh, stupid auto correct) us anything about activities and all, and they just give all these values. Look:

6:03 AM

The point is that apart from a few special cases that are never used in practice $\ce{[H2O]}$ is always one.

user228700

user image

@KaumudiHarikumar no textbook starts by teaching activities.

user116211

~~@ortho~~ @orthocresol I linked him Manish's post yesterday, but it still didn't render for him even after it was bookmarked.

How did you strikethrough that text? o.o

I would not be surprised if Manish's post is outdated by now. It is from quite some time ago, isn't it?

---this is strikeout---

user228700

6:06 AM

@orthocresol Sigh. OK...

user116211

@orthocresol It works quite well for me.

Sadly I don't remember what I did to enable mathjax in chat..

user116211

@orthocresol ---text to be struck---

~~I am running in moderator elections~~

user228700

I still don't understand everything and I'm very confused.

user116211

6:07 AM

@orthocresol ~~\o/~~

@KaumudiHarikumar that refers to the absolute dissociation constant of water, which is a silly concept that no-one ever uses.

user228700

"My stupid textbook"; the tragic story of the suicide of a 17 year-old girl. Available in bookstores near you.

@KaumudiHarikumar Just take what your text says as it is.

user228700

@orthocresol W/o questioning anything?

user228700

@JohnRennie OK... :-(

6:10 AM

Nah.. I mean, if you want to question, keep it separate from what your text says.

@KaumudiHarikumar In three years of a chemistry degree I never encountered the absolute dissociation constant of water. Why your textbook thinks it's importaht enough to mention escapes me.

sighs

user228700

@JohnRennie Didn't u read that book title? "My stupid textbook".

user228700

U'll notice that most of the questions that I've asked u stem from misconceptions.

I guess if your studying for college entrance exams you need to use the books they recommend. My recommendations would be Atkins or Moore though bear in mind those recommendations are from forty years ago :-)

6:13 AM

Atkins is more famous than ever now, heh.

user228700

@JohnRennie Yes, but like I said, I don't have the time...

I always thought Moore was more rigorous than Atkins. Is Moore still used?

Atkins was certainly easier to read.

user228700

OK then. I'm gonna go die now. See ya! (And thanks!)

Back to physics then :-)

@JohnRennie Not that I know of.

@KaumudiHarikumar See, what I mean is that, it is perhaps useful to bear in mind that this idea that pKa of water = 15.74 is commonly cited in many places. And to know how people derive that number.

user116211

6:18 AM

@JohnRennie I have not heard of Moore; I have used Atkins throughout my high-school; but not Moore :(

While it may not be absolutely correct. (I felt Dave's answer was quite clear. TL;DR is: there is no IUPAC definition of pKa. Adopting the usual pKa definition for H3O+, leads to a pKa of 0. And by certain other approximations, which leads to a non-standard definition of pKa, one obtains pKa of -1.7.)

@MAFIA36790 books.google.co.uk/books/about/…

The extension to the pKa of water is: by pKa + pKb = 14, pKa(H3O+) = -1.7 translates to pKb(H2O) = 15.7. And since pKa of water must be equal to pKb of water, pKa(H2O) = 15.6.

user116211

@JohnRennie aha!

It seems to be out of print, so I guess that answers my question :-)

user116211

6:21 AM

@JohnRennie There must be a copy in the Archive; they have almost a complete collection of every old books.

I guess the point is that you should be using the textbook the university recommends as they'll almost certainly tailor the exam questions to the approach used in their recommended book. So though Moore is good I wouldn't recommend using it.

user116211

@JohnRennie yeh; valid point.

7:21 AM

0

Q: A question that I believe should be c because of the wording

27) The periodic table organizes every known element by their atomic number. The result is a large grid that arranges the elements in a way where similar properties are grouped together. Based on what you have learned about the link between the position of an element on the table and how that ele...

homework everyday-chemistry

Heh, the title

Someone edit it. I'm doing something else

user116211

@Rubisco Let me try...

Lets him try

user116211

How about this:

user116211

> Are chromium, silver and cobalt all positioned in the d block as they all have fewer than 10 electrons occupying their highest energy d orbitals?

user116211

?

7:30 AM

How many characters is that? 9 billion?

A title should be shorter than that

user116211

@Rubisco Sorry, sit ;(

I would just write "Subshells and orbitals: This question doesn't know what they are."

Or maybe "Subshell and orbital????"

Or "HOMEWORK HELP ME PLEASE"

user116211

But this seems to be hard; how should I reflect that OP is dubious of option c?

user116211

@orthocresol ;P

@orthocresol ಠ_ಠ

7:32 AM

Don't mind me, I'm just kidding haha

@MAFIA36790 Don't.

Yeah, I would go with a generic title.

That info should be in the body

user116211

@Rubisco ohh?

Water?

user116211

7:33 AM

@Rubisco Okay, then what should be there in the title?

Only the main question, preferably with headlinese and chocolate topping

It's a lousy question that should never see the light of day again on this website.

Perhaps "How is the arrangement of the Periodic Table related to electronic configuration".

user116211

> Which of the following options is the correct fact related to Periodic Table?

@orthocresol The more you think about it the more you hate it, eh

user116211

@orthocresol Sounds good; but don't think OP is asking this.

7:35 AM

@Rubisco I mean, it fits the HW policy and all, so we don't close it, but I just don't see the benefit of such questions. :(

Honestly, I have no idea how I accumulated 5,000 rep. My posts are never good

user116211

@orthocresol yeh; true.

user116211

But let me go with that.

user116211

Which of the following options....

@MAFIA36790 Anything you do is probably better than the original, so you can't go wrong.

:p

7:36 AM

@orthocresol If Cowper was here, I'd've told him to give us a poem about shortsightedness

user116211

How can it be everyday-chemistry O.o

You're very shortsighted. That question can be used in an English corpus of ancient words after 5000 years.

I do wear glasses, so I will be the first to admit I am shortsighted.

Second

You did not understand my question.Your answer does not explain why is there a decrease in available oxidation states.Say,why does Fe show +7 oxidation state,why doesnt Co show +6 oxidation state though electrons are left in 3d? I know you can just look up I.E. values but that is not a reason. — ZOZ 32 secs ago

m8, think you didn't understand my answer...

7:42 AM

But that's not a good enough reason.You are justifying using IE.But what if you did'nt have access to I.E. values.Then how would you justify the sudden decrease in available oxidation states after $\ce{Fe}$ just by using the electronic configurations ? — ZOZ 3 mins ago

You're justifying using Internet Explorer?

That's gotta be a fun answer to read

Haha

Also gawd I hate the cramped punctuation

Now that makes sense! @orthocresol — ZOZ 17 secs ago

I repeated my answer.

._.

I repeated my answer.

Now see, the difference between the two chat messages is that I said the second one.

Hence I'm right.

If there's a lesson to be learned, it's not to say things for the first time.

Always say things for the second time.

@Rubisco I never knew of that.I thought that was MS-Word style :-P.Anyway I will follow it in future if you say so... — ZOZ 23 secs ago

. . .

Is it a language thing?

7:49 AM

It's a language style thing.

But they still used the cramped punctuation in their 'I never knew that' response

Mmhmm, I don't know any Indian, so no idea. But a lot of them seem to omit the space after punctuation.

@orthocresol Indians like French spacing more.

But usually they just don't know how to punctuate correctly.

Or care.

user116211

> Which one of the following options is true w.r.t. the position of elements in the Periodic table and arrangement of electrons in the elements?

The title doesn't have to be a question when it's gonna be that long.

user116211

@Rubisco ;/

7:55 AM

I'd just go with 'the position of elements in the Periodic table and arrangement of electrons in the elements' if I have to type that much

user116211

I think this pretty reflects the query...

user116211

@Rubisco But it doesn't say the question is homework and we have to choose an option...

What does HW have to do with this?

user116211

@Rubisco Hmm... Nothing; but it reflects the type of query clearly.

Whatever man

Don't sweat it, it's not like it's an exemplary question

user116211

7:58 AM

@Rubisco ;P

user116211

sure.

@Jan If you want to bounty something, could I humbly suggest this? chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/40138

I'll post it on the meta thread as well.

-3

A: Why can't Pd/C and H2 reduce both the alkene and carbonyl portions of α,β-unsaturated carbonyls?

the answer to your question lies in the catalyst used!! if we use only Pd then complete reduction will take place . but if we want to reduce the reactant partially i.e. reduce only one double bond ; we use Pd alongwith C(carbon) because "C" acts as a "poison" and influences the reduction reacti...

Heh

Actually Dissenter placed a bounty on it before..

Well, that seemed to fruit, since he got an answer by Palpatine himself.

@rubi meh. I suppose it's fine this way. Someone needs to go through and combine these anyway, this way, they can be placed together (if both are chosen) to retain context. — Martin - マーチン ♦ 25 secs ago

Huh

Mart you're hard to decipher.

I heard that's a professor trait.

user116211

8:19 AM

@Rubisco He would be very busy around this time of the year as he said earlier.

I wonder if I say 'I won't run' he'd come to chat yelling.

8:41 AM

0

A: At what voltage does the electrodeposition of the metal start?

Your answer, which you marked as "answer" for bounty, is ok, though confusing. Are V1 and V2 real voltages or E° as in your initial question, or what? Also, you introduced "RHS/LHS", but this is not needed as it's implied in definition of voltage as directed potential difference. Kirchhoff's equa...

"All people are intrinsically greedy for Stack Exchange reputation." - Confucius

@orthocresol The journey of a million rep begins with a single upvote.

Whenever I see a picture of the moon where the points go more than halfway around, I assume it's being eclipsed by one of those Independence Day ships and interpret the rest of the image in light of that.

user116211

9:00 AM

@orthocresol Nods

10:00 AM

is it that SALC would be the same as program-generated LCAO?

2. can an electron be in a superposition of 1s+2s?

10:22 AM

If a covalent bond tending towards ionic is called "polar covalent", then what is ionic tending to covalent?

i don't think there is a name for it. for the most part, we would say that this salt exhibits a certain degree of covalency

e.g. it is common to say that "AgI has some covalent character"

@1,3-feeds Hurry up!!! Where are you :p

We HNQ now. chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/59914/…

=^.^=

Plus it might get meta effect soon.

`(.•.)´

@orthocresol what kind of covalent character?

@DHMO quantum chemistry programs symmetry adapt LCAO if you ask them. But they very hardly be the same as what you get in oversimplified general chemistry descriptions taught at school.

@DHMO absolutely

10:35 AM

@DHMO what do you mean? covalent character just means there is some sharing of electrons and it's not 100% polarised. there are no different kinds of covalent character

@DHMO it is just means that AgI bond is not purely ionic.

But rather a bit covalent as well.

@orthocresol I meant, what shows it has some covalent character
@Wildcat then why doesn't anyone talk about 1s+2s?

is this the reason it won't dissolve in water?

In inorganic chemistry, Fajan's Rules, formulated by Kazimierz Fajans in 1923, are used to predict whether a chemical bond will be covalent or ionic, and depend on the charge on the cation and the relative sizes of the cation and anion. They can be summarized in the following table: Thus sodium chloride (with a low positive charge (+1), a fairly large cation (~1 Å) and relatively small anion (0.2 Å) is ionic; but aluminium iodide (AlI3) (with a high positive charge (+3) and a large anion) is covalent. Polarization will be increased by: High charge and small size of the cation Ionic potential Å...

@DHMO well, everyone is talking about them, just not at the school level

@Wildcat for example?

10:38 AM

The general rule is that if a system can be in states A and B, it can be in superposition of these states as well.

@DHMO well, ... Wait! I need to eat first! :D

11:14 AM

OK. I'm back! =^.^=

@DHMO So, the simplest description for the ground state of He atom is $\mathrm{1s^2}$.

However, it "helps" to mix in just a little bit of the first doubly-exicted determinant which describes $\mathrm{2s^2}$ configuration.

I.e. the energy of the state $\mathrm{1s^2} + c \mathrm{2s^2}$, where $c$ is a small number, is lower than that of pure $\mathrm{1s^2}$ state.

And in this state both electrons are in superpositions of 1s and 2s orbitals: one occupies $\psi_{\mathrm{1s}} - x \psi_{\mathrm{2s}}$, another one $\psi_{\mathrm{1s}} + x \psi_{\mathrm{2s}}$, where $x$ is a small number.

By doing so electrons avoid each other better than by just "sitting" on the very same 1s spatial orbital.

That is call dynamical electron correlation.

2

A: Why are excited Slater determinants used to describe electron correlation?

As I mentioned in comments, professor Jack Simons offers a relatively simple physical interpretation of the idea of mixing in excited detrminant for treating dynamical correlation in his book "Quantum Mechanics in Chemistry" (Chapter 8) freely available here, as well as in this video which is als...

Just in case.

11:30 AM

@Wildcat thanks cat

11:45 AM

@orthocresol I see that you liked the format that I used for your Cp-CV question. ;-)

12:05 PM

@Loong Mmhmm, I did ^^

:-)

12:25 PM

@orthocresol Done ;)

I just saw :D

I would research it, but just can't quite find anything, checked a few of the well-known textbooks...

I'm not going to. I would just win even more magical unicorn points™ xD

Can you award your bounty to your own answer if you answer it?

user116211

@orthocresol I think you can but it won't add to your rep.

Ah, I see

12:39 PM

14

Q: Why can't Pd/C and H2 reduce both the alkene and carbonyl portions of α,β-unsaturated carbonyls?

Why is it that the major product of the reduction of chalcones the ketone and not the monoalcohol? In other words, Why isn't the major product a benzyl alcohol? From what I understand, catalytic hydrogenation can be used to reduce carbonyls as well as alkenes. My TA told me that nucleophilic h...

organic-chemistry redox hydrogen catalysis

Why so slow, Hunter?! :D

Oh, boy...

OChem question...

Can we answer these why question with just "Cause mother nature works this way"? XD

Interestingly, that is essentially what organic chemists usually do.

:D

It is that instead of just stating the truth as it is, they start to invent concepts like resonance stabilization, hyperconjugation, etc. XD

@Wildcat Well technically yes, but we want to be able to use one case to predict further cases and that only works with concepts ;)

Heh, right in the body of the question: "resonance", "conjugated", "resonance stabilized", ...

And then: "Sterics, perhaps?" :D

This is SO typical!

If nothing works - try sterics! XD

:p

@Jan the problem is that for non-experts all this business looks like "concepts juggle" where you randomly peak concepts that would fit and ignore others that would not.

It might not be what it appears to be, but this is how it looks like from the outside, so to speak.

12:52 PM

But if concept X doesn't explain something but the less important concept Y does, it's mandatory to supply a reason why X does not apply.

@Jan yeah, well, but often the reason is that you just include the system under consideration as an exception to the rule that does not work.

By introducing yeat-another-concept. :D

@Wildcat Now, that's the outsider's view ;) If I said that in my defense my supervisor would make me leave in a very unpleasant way ;)

@Jan XD I know that.

Still, for an uninitiated it appears like you all are cheating! :D

The big problem is, in my opinion, that in many ochem textbooks and courses, these rules are taught as fundamental general principles, while they are not.

I mean, professional organic chemistry surely understand that these are simply rationalization concepts that are often useful but not universally valid, but students are usually under a delusion that they are.

But students are under so many delusions and most of them are self-acquired.

Yeah, and it is so difficult to get rid of their delusions... :|

Like it was many times seen on the site. :D

It is the vacation now and I do not have access to my university library - however, March's Organic Chemistry 6th ed has a table listing the same reactivity order you have given above towards catalytic hydrogenation (except the aldehyde and alkene are swapped). The reference given is House, Modern Synthetic Reactions, 2nd ed - so there might be info in there - and if nobody gets around to doing it, I will try to do some research when I am back in the UK. Hudlicky, M., J. Chem. Educ., 1977, 54, 100 also contains many literature links. — orthocresol Jan 2 at 9:34

"I will try to do some research when I am back in the UK"

Jan 2

Well, well, well, mr. @ortho!

YOU PROMISED A RESEARCH!

And where it is? :D

@orthocresol Oh, wait! @Jan is in conspiracy with @ortho! :O

1:15 PM

@Wildcat @orthoseal @Wildwolf found out about the NWO. It needs to be eliminated!

quietly sneaks away

@Jan What does that stand for?

The...

NWO?

New World Order. Damnit, you're not into conspiracy theories .__.

New World Order!

:D

Ohhhh!

1:19 PM

@Jan we have to improve @ortho's knowledge in that area ASAP! :|

@Wildcat No! We shall leave @ortho in the dark so that @ortho will be a helpless victim of the future plans! x3

@Jan XD

I hope @ortho did not start to read about NWO on the Internet. :D

Boy, there are so much crap on the Internet...

On a positive note, all this crap makes sites like ones on SE network so invaluable...

@Wildcat Yeah, they have no clue. As if we still used chemtrails. In reality, the chemicals have been mixed into petrol and are now excreeted in car exhausts. Much more efficient than waiting for them to drop down from plane cruise heights.

Mmmm, chemtrails... :D

@ortho, stop working and read about it! :D

Damnit. Gamification works. I'm not going to coffee break because I want to review a late answer D=

1:42 PM

Little do you guys know...

Imagine, if I was in charge of such a conspiracy, I would pretend to not know about it, right?

@orthocresol is a mason or a reptiloid. I knew that! :|

Hahah

Yeah, I really don't read much of these stuff..

2 days ago, by orthocresol

@Loong I am pure and innocent... don't..

:D

2:20 PM

Or you are simply part of a different conspiracy and pretend not to notice ours.

1 hour later…

3:22 PM

-4

Q: Death Battle: Who Would Win Sebastian vs Raizel vs Itachi?

Now most of you guys may have seen the shows these guys are from and may have an idea of who would win. All i have to say is don't say this person would win because you like them pls givesome sort of explanation and have fun.

user116211

@Rubisco WTH is that ;((

Apparently a meta.SE question

user116211

Hello @Mith! I miss your old gravatar :(

@MAFIA36790 :( I was nice

Now you're purple.

user116211

3:26 PM

@Rubisco Don't know what OP is talking about but he/she meant for some debate type discussions; SE IS NOT FORUM ;(

Possible duplicate of answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130422192905AAANYOH — Shadow Wizard 2 mins ago

user116211

@Jan O.o

@MAFIA36790 Well, keep shouting that until you drop. Then take a look at how many billions just ignored it

user116211

Why in the world would anyone follow that damn Yahoo Answers ;/

in Tavern on the Meta on Meta Stack Exchange Chat, 2 mins ago, by Rubisco

@ShadowWizard voted to close

@MAFIA36790 It's a very good site with fine content.

user116211

3:27 PM

@Rubisco nay...

@Rubisco The former one was definitely my comment of the day =D

Wow. Answered 55 seconds ago, already acquired to upvotes on Travel.SE for a very long answer™ ô.o

Who said my name?? ;-)

user116211

!!greet/@ShadowWizard

Gosh, we could do with less outsiders in this chat, we're conspiring to take over the world you know.

Welcome to The Periodic Table @ShadowWizard! Here are our chat guidelines and it's recommended that you read them. If you want to turn Mathjax on, follow the instructions in this answer. Happy chatting!

3:41 PM

Yesterday it was John Rennie

And today we have Shadow Wizard..

:D

But I am not 100% new here ;)

@ShadowWizard Welcome back then ;)

Surprises, surprises :)

!!blame

user116211

@ShadowWizard That's why Mr.Chem greeted you ;)

3:49 PM

@Rubisco I change gravatar from this purple abomination, but it's still worse than original.

user116211

@Mithoron Didn't you find your original one?

Heh all gravatars changed

@MAFIA36790 I didn't copy it in time and now dunno if I could find it

Maybe web archive

user116211

@Mithoron ;/

user116211

3:51 PM

@Mithoron I googled it; it is contaminated ._.

@ShadowWizard blame it all on @Ina!

@MAFIA36790 nay to what? Site or content? ;)

@MAFIA36790 Huh?

@Jan I blame @MAR aka Mr. Bitter

user116211

@Mithoron Well; I found your old gravatar; but when I tapped to enlarge it to have a snapshot; it changed within a second to your new one :(

3:53 PM

@MAFIA36790 link?

user116211

@ShadowWizard They are @DEAD ;)

@MAFIA36790 Stop giving him @TIPS

user116211

@ShadowWizard lmgtfy ;P

Lol

user116211

@Jan Maybe @Rubisco know better.

3:55 PM

Such an unstable chemical is scary ;-)

user116211

@ShadowWizard ;P

@ShadowWizard @Ina didn't come out as nitroglycerin or as a triazide yet, so don't call it ;p

@Jan diazomethane incoming...

@orthocresol Methylhydrazine?

user116211

@ShadowWizard: I first googled Mithoron which gave totally unrelated different unexpected results; but then after googling Mithoron Stack Exchange, I got the old gravatar.

3:57 PM

@Jan All of the above :D Plus some pure solid mCPBA just for good measure.

@Mithoron

user image

« first day (1617 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2771 days later) »

Transcript for

Sep '1629

The Periodic Table

Haikus are awesome / Chemistry's even better / So pull up a chair

blowing-the-lab-up german-stuff hullo love-you-all martin table-flipping tre welcome

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile