The Periodic Table - 2015-10-19

« first day (1271 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3109 days later) »

Martin - マーチン

6:01 AM

@TanMath I guess moving on to episode two is somewhat a process and it's gonna take some time, after all three sessions were necessary to get rid of organic chemistry problems...

Martin - マーチン

6:24 AM

@Loong Would that definition make CCl4 an organic compound? As in tetra-chloro methane?

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M I could beat that ;) In a minute or two :P

3 hours later…

9:27 AM

@Martin-マーチン I think so.

2 hours later…

11:41 AM

@Martin-マーチン Fun fact: Those tetrahalomethanes or tetrahalocarbons are often considered as both, at least where I have been so far. They can be named by organic nomenclature (-methane) or inorganic (-carbon).

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

12:07 PM

@Martin-マーチン Yes.

@Jan Huh?

12:24 PM

I thanked Loong by saying what would we do without him ;)

Martin - マーチン

@inɒ !!!!!

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Martin-マーチン I DIDN'T DO IT! (•_•)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿

Martin - マーチン

@Jan well, there would not be an authorative source for nomenclature.... yo/

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M i just wanted to know something....

whats next on tre?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Martin-マーチン OK, know it.

@Martin-マーチン Cleaning up everyday-chemistry, oh wait lemme check something.

Martin - マーチン

what's the status on structural-diagrams?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

12:28 PM

@Martin-マーチン Didn't you say we'd rename it to structural-formula?

Martin - マーチン

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M yes... just asking if you did clean it up?

already... or if that is planned

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Hmm, next TRE is everyday-chemistry and physical-chemistry's turn CC @Mart @Jan @Mith @Todd @Wytha @Wild @Ortho

@Martin-マーチン We didn't.

Martin - マーチン

or... if I shall go ahead and rename it....

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Martin-マーチン Rename it, and I have a tag wiki edit to suggest.

Martin - マーチン

okay... gimme a few minutes

4

Q: 'Structural-diagrams' tag disorder

I seems to me that this tag is seriously overused. Mistagging is one thing here, but shouldn't it be used only when lewis-structure doesn't apply? EDIT: Yes, it's probably redundant, because after retagging there would be little to nothing left.

discussion status-completed tags

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Your turn ;)

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

12:42 PM

@Martin-マーチン I'm here I'm here pass the ball!

Martin - マーチン

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M i ain't see no proposal...

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Martin-マーチン Wait for it, if I'm going to make a change, it better be good.

Wait @Mart, so let's get this straight: Should we count lewis structures in the structural-formula thingy?

I think the best thing to do is to synonymize it with structural formula.

@MART

Martin - マーチン

you mean merge lewis-structure into structural-fromula?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Yes.

Martin - マーチン

yayaya lemme type duuuud

12:54 PM

Yezz! Pundit badge on German =3 I feel so proud =3

Martin - マーチン

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... I dunno.... we never said that...

and the meta question was posed differently

I don't really think they should be merged, because a Lewis structure seems to be a specific kind of structural formula that is a tag of its own right …

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

New meta I guess?

@Jan Why not? If they get merged, someone typing "lewis" to get lewis-structure will get structural-formula.

Martin - マーチン

yeah, i guess that's be a new meta

merged there would be 128 questions

chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/…

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Martin-マーチン Am writing it now.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

1:18 PM

@Martin-マーチン . meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/2983/…

0

Q: Merge "lewis-structure" and "structural-formula"?

Unlike always, I'd be direct: Should we merge lewis-structures and the newly renamed structural-formula because Lewis structures are clearly structural formulas and the Wikipedia page for "structural formulas" says I'm right in saying that and no matter how much high schools love Lewis structures...

discussion tags tag-synonyms

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@StackExchange I'll kill you next time you be slow. (•_•)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿

Martin - マーチン

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M double the effort....

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Martin-マーチン I honestly see no reason not to merge.

Why shouldn't we merge?

Martin - マーチン

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M well... it's the thing where you do the thing and then the thing does the thing and you get confused about the thing doing the thing, while another thing does something else... you know?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

1:29 PM

But when the thing does the other thing while doing this thing it messes all things up.

Martin - マーチン

In other words: There is actually no good reason against the merge, there is only a weak one for the megre...

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Martin-マーチン Not a weak one . . .

Martin - マーチン

and you might be right, that this is coming back biting us in the behind, but we'll wait a week and see what the others have to say...

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

4

Q: 'Structural-diagrams' tag disorder

I seems to me that this tag is seriously overused. Mistagging is one thing here, but shouldn't it be used only when lewis-structure doesn't apply? EDIT: Yes, it's probably redundant, because after retagging there would be little to nothing left.

discussion status-completed tags

When you can't kill [diagrams], kill the subset.

Martin - マーチン

i don't understand

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

1:32 PM

@Martin-マーチン I mean, we found legit cases for structural-diagrams, so we can't kill it.

Or burn it.

Martin - マーチン

yes... i know

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

But when lewis-structure is fully covered by structural-formulas, it's redundant.

The latter, I mean.

Martin - マーチン

why i want to avoid is that someone will come about when the tag becomes huge and some people want to split it up again...

well, I just don't want to decide it...

that's what we have a community for... we'll see after a week or so what we will do...

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Martin-マーチン I see what you're getting at, but Newman projections and Lewis structures are so close it won't happen.

@Martin-マーチン Yeah let's wait.

Martin - マーチン

I mean it's out there.... if there is nothing much after the weekend i'll feature it....

but i guess we have a result by then already

for now, i just did what was asked :D

If you are an expert on crystallography or just very interested in it, you may want to have a look at the new proposal on Area 51.

3

1:49 PM

By the way, I still feel we could separate Newman and Sägebock projections into something like stereochemical-projections or whatnot.

Which would also include Fischer and Haworth.

Martin - マーチン

@Jan do we have questions for that?

2:53 PM

Unsure.

3:24 PM

Welcome to Periodic Table @ENEMYAIR !

Welcome from me, too @ene!

I'm damn pissed D= I was hoping to go to the sauna tonight, but it turns out it doesn't open until next week D=

oh god, this qn on crystal field theory

i spent so much time on the topic last week in uni.. don't feel like explaining it again LOL

3:41 PM

Hehe, that's okay, I can do it @ortho ;)

please go ahead

Will do so, today or tomorrow ^^

Arigatou gozaimasu

Now, i need to do another tutorial on f-block...

3:59 PM

f-block? All the same @ortho.

4:58 PM

@Jan Haha yeah, it's mostly all the same except for Eu and Yb. And Ce.

and then the actinides are all radioactive so (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻)

But they glow in the dark! (/¯◡ ‿ ◡)/¯ ~ ┻━┻

3 hours later…

7:44 PM

Can you send munes homework to me? @inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Berne munes?

Oh wait, Munesyar?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

8:09 PM

@Berne Give me an email in that private room.

@Mart @Jan you didn't upboat the new meta post and it's not getting views and this getting really boring.

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Since I generally disagree with merging the two, I’m leaning towards a downvote rather than an upvote.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Jan It's not an FR, it's discussion.

Just add an answer and say "no".

I thought that that was how meta works? Disagree with the proposal → downvote.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Jan I didn't propose anything.

> Should merge blah and bleh?

≠

Meow!

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

8:13 PM

> Let's merge blah and bleh.

@Wildcat Meow!

Nyan!

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

0

Q: Enthalpy of reaction

I have this equation: N2(g)+O2(g)->2NO(g) The binding enthalpies are N2=949KJ/mol, O2=497KJ/mol, NO=630KJ/mol How do I get Delta H rxn?

If I see "rxn" again, I'm gonna kill someone.

*pats @kitty for a nice quantum chem answer*

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Wild kitty!

Stop imitating the nitroglycerin rxn, @inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M!

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

8:15 PM

@Jan The rxns in real life are harder to comprehend than rxns in lab and those are harder to understand than rxns on paper. rxn

♪ rxn ♫

What's going on?! :O

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Wildcat We're talking about rxns and meta posts.

And we're singing.

"A Little Priest" - Sweeney Todd : The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

OK then, continue! :D

This is what I'm singing to =3

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

8:17 PM

@Jan Tell you what, downvote it when it gets answered, m'kay?

I just want the .___. meta community to wake up. (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻

I'll actually just start writing an answer and see where I arrive ,)

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

K.

@Wild should we merge lewis-structure and structural-formula?

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M no.

@Jan youtube.com/watch?v=TnNyyzQ7vUI

:D

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Wildcat Why not?

@Wildcat Reply to her message instead, then the YouTube link will onebox.

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M, sounds like two different things to me.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

8:29 PM

This doesn't onebox: youtube.com/watch?v=TnNyyzQ7vUI

This does:

Montreal Canadiens 2015 Playoff Goal Horn ᴴᴰ

@Wildcat They're not. Lewis structures are a subset of structural formulas, says Wikipedia.

Structural formula

The structural formula of a chemical compound is a graphic representation of the molecular structure, showing how the atoms are arranged. The chemical bonding within the molecule is also shown, either explicitly or implicitly. Unlike chemical formulas, which have a limited number of symbols and are capable of only limited descriptive power, structural formulas provide a complete geometric representation of the molecular structure. For example, many chemical compounds exist in different isomeric forms, which have different enantiomeric structures but the same chemical formula. A structural formula...

Oh, Wikipedia... :D

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Wildcat So that's what cats listen to.

What IUPAC says? ;)

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Loong!

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Canadian cats, not me. XD

When they're watching hockey. XD

Cat watching hockey

8:32 PM

I wanna go watch hockey~ =C

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

goldbook.iupac.org/L03513.html

goldbook.iupac.org/S06061.html

And where it is said then that Lewis formula is a special kind of structural formula?

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M hm?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Loong Is a Lewis structure a structural formula?

(Kinda a stupid question, but you need IUPAC to persuade demons and cats)

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Oh, I'm persuaded it is one, I'm just not persuaded we want to merge.

Oh my God, we have a llama with a hat D=

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

8:43 PM

@Mart Jan has a point in her meta answer:

See ya later guys, I'll be playing a bit of N64.

The elderly will remember the console ;)

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

1

A: Merge "lewis-structure" and "structural-formula"?

Well, I’ll be rather frank. I disagree with merging lewis-structure into the new structural-formula. The reasons being as follows: lewis-structure is more specific. There are structural formulae that aren’t Lewis structures. lewis-structure is probably (although I didn’t check the numbers) a ta...

@Mart maybe we should remove "structural formula" and add "structural projection" or something like that?

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M A Lewis formula gives information about the way the atoms in a molecule are connected; so far it may be considered to be one of the various structural formulas. But a Lewis formula does not give information about the way the atoms are arranged in space; that’s not the purpose of Lewis formulas.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

yES.

I mean yes.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

9:17 PM

LOL @Jan Google Translate translated you into "January" back at the G-block, and it took me five minutes to realize it was you.

Hahaha, but what are you Google translating the g-block for? D=

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Jan Chrome automagically does it.

. . . when it doesn't fail.

Oh, so you send all the data to Google ^^

@Loong Wow … I never would have thought that Sägebock were not a proper noun D=

@Jan Karl-Heinz Sägebock?

What du I know? xD

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

9:23 PM

@Jan Who's Sagebock?

Is it edible?

Probably. Though he'll probably not be as fresh as priest since he likely committed sins of the flesh xD

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Jan G-Translate does a great job:

> bis jetzt hat mich die serie ganz gut unterhalten -> until now has me serial entertained quite well

Bit bad, if the grammar is so badly transformed and the principal word mistranslated xD

But then sometimes I use translate.google.com for Finnish or Japanese and get worse grammar back xD

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Well, robots won't understand humans ever because we don't have an algorithm and they run on algorithm.

@Jan Do you remember than link I posted?

Which link?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

9:30 PM

@Jan ackuna.com/badtranslator It's self-explanatory.

> @Jan
The great white shark is infamous for its consistency in being relentless.
->
Great white shark structure

> Stop it you idiot! This function won't work.
->
In addition, You can cheat! This feature is not available.

« first day (1271 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3109 days later) »

Transcript for

Oct '1519

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