Hmm I have not come across such a thing. Normally we stop at p-orbitals and d-orbital bonds are rare. f-orbitals were generally never discussed (from my experience). It is a good question.
In fact I don't think I've come across something where f-orbitals were involved in bonding.
I was answering that other question and my brains just went viral, and I had no idea how to approach a search like this, if you have no clue how its called...
if you go as high as hexuple bonds, you have this funny thing with two sigma bonds... incredible...
i left a response to a post that clearly was asking how to state something in a more efficient way.
Except now I'm being trolled by two users (one in particular) who not only states that my answer does not address the OP but that somehow I have to provide references to support the statement being made...
finally the user took my answer, changed two words and posted it as his own
i try to help someone succinctly say something that they want to say and now I'm being told I have to support my claims that "breastfeeding is healthy"? How utterly fucked up is that?
Good cooperation needs viral disagreement, respectfully challenging one another is part of the process. The most important thing is not to make it personal. In every cooperation you have to be able to drink a beer (or coffee) together in your free time.
We should do a paper together, that'll work.
@LordStryker I asked you once, but forgot if you replied... are you on researchgate?
@Martin wants to collaborate with me? I'm very honored!
I'd be totally game.
@Martin I don't think I replied. That fell by the wayside (my bad). I am not on researchgate. I know of the website but I don't know what its purpose is or how it would be beneficial.
@LordStryker I do not see many benefits in it either. It makes finding and contacting people quite easy, if they use the platform. Sometimes you find full texts, which I usually do not have access to and it you can request such texts in private. The Q&A bit is not very good, more like a forum not much discipline...
@Martin, if we collaborated, what should we examine? Should we let SE:Chem suggest some feasible ideas and put it to a vote? That would be really interesting.
haha. Yeah well I really like the idea of an international collaboration, especially with Martin. But things are never so easy and we are both very busy so the idea may seem a bit like a long shot.
But I was wondering if we could tie it into a collaborative project with SE:Chem somehow.
Wouldn't that make for a really cool situation? Questions are posted for potential research ideas, the most upvoted gets researched, and then after a year or two we come back and respond to the answer with a link to a publication that examined it in detail.
Well I'm sure we'll hear his opinion about it sooner or later. If he thought it was feasible, I'd definitely would want to chat with him about some of the details before even thinking about Meta.
The phlogiston theory is an obsolete scientific theory that postulated a fire-like element called phlogiston, contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. The name comes from the Ancient Greek φλογιστόν phlogistón (burning up), from φλόξ phlóx (flame). It was first stated in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher. The theory attempted to explain burning processes such as combustion and rusting, which are now collectively known as oxidation.
== §Theory ==
Phlogisticated substances are substances that contains phlogiston and dephlogisticate when burned.
In general, substances that...