« first day (1150 days earlier)      last day (3536 days later) » 

00:27
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
etc.
What?
@santiago what triggered your evil laugh?
just a bit of evil I did
Oh, it's 5:00 a.m. here. Still not asleep. Hear that @Martin?
@santiago On SE?
What did you do @santiago? Downvote a Q?
on one of the meta chats
00:31
What? Meta.SE?
You mean The Tavern?
nope...
SPIT IT OUT ALREADY!
nicael posted some swearing, just afater addressing me in Shadow's Den, in the guise of the word game
so I flagged them and he/she got rightfully chatbanned
Poor Nicael.
I wonder why you hate them so much.
meh
not 'hate', but don't like being passively aggressively hit with insults
00:35
Link!
from here onwards chat.meta.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/3597425#3597425 the offensive nonsense has been removed
@santiago What part of that isn't nonsense?
Hah! I'm looking forward to make @Mithoron a chat reg . . .
hahahaahahhahahaha
00:51
Haha @san watch:
0
Q: About the Chat script being used on stack exchange

digital soldierDear site i want to ask what is this chat script can i download it somewhere that is used on stack exchange

01:07
lol
01:19
holy crud... just lost 8 rep... removal of edited posts
:(
@santiago please dont ever leave chem.se :)
eh? I will never leave, for one thing @M.A.Ramezani would hunt me down
I will make that rep back easy enough
already got 2 back by accepting @ron's great answer to my latest question
@LordStryker turn that frown upside down with a 'lol'
01:38
:D
just ordered chinese food. mmm mmmmmm!
chinese food is phenomenal after drinking
01:56
what time is it in the great outback @santiago?
it be midday
02:49
\o night everyone :)
03:08
Hi everyone!
hello.
 
6 hours later…
ADG
ADG
08:58
@ManishEarth sorry but can you tell me when I can have some little talk with you, on a serious note - it's not about stackexchange.
09:21
@ADG ?
@M.A.Ramezani Re: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/33122/…, please be nicer :)
09:41
@M.A.Ramezani
 
2 hours later…
12:04
Hello
anyone here?
I need help understanding atom bonding
Jan
Jan
13:01
@LordStryker Got it, thanks. Love you! <3
so can u help me?
Where is the connection with bonding and anti-bonding MO and hybridization?
Jan
Jan
@FISOCPP to answer that first tell me what your level is and what the actual question is.
13:16
Well how bonding and anti-bonding MO are formed and what's the connection between them and hybridization?
Because they describe them seperately for some strange reason
Aren't they both describing the MO after two atoms come together?
Jan
Jan
Well, MO's are typically calculated from all the electrons present in the entire molecule and hence span the entire molecule. You would really have to calculate them. However, there is the concept of LCAO, linear combination of atomic orbitals that you’re likely referring to and which eases up the process:
For that, you consider each atom to provide whichever atomic orbitals you decided to hybridise and donate them into bonds with neighboring atoms. It will usually be two neighbouring atoms of which each donates one orbital. Maths tells you, though, that the number of orbitals must stay the same after the linear combination step; we’ll come back to that in a second.
First, what is linear combination? It combines the vectors *a* and *b* to a resulting vector *c* by the following means:
*c* = *k* · *a* + *l* · *b*
Translated into orbitals that means that you need to sum up (or subtract) the wave functions creating ‘more’ or ‘stronger’ waves.
So take to orbitals which can overlap and combine them to form a bonding orbital. However, two orbitals need to create two orbitals, not just one. Hence you need to combine them with reverse signs on one AO to give the antibonding orbital.
Hybridisation can come a priori, i.e. I know I want to create a double bond, so my carbon needs to be sp², or a posteriori, i.e. I can reduce these MO's back to single bond AO's and they look like this carbon has sp². You would usually use the former method.
Did that semi-answer your question?
Somebody tell me why the equation up there doesn’t contain italic variables …
 
2 hours later…
15:01
@M.A.Ramezani
15:27
@ManishEarth O.o
Did I hurt anyone? Did I get flagged?
I didn't mean to . . .
I don't see a clue of being not nice there @Manish.
Anyhow, if I was, sorry.
@Levy I AM HERE.
@Jan Markdown can be really annoying sometimes.
o
o.0
Let me see . . .
o + k
This is sooo weird.
c = k · a + l · b
Haha!
@Jan I haven't a clue. My messages are italic.
c = k · a + l · b
 
1 hour later…
16:55
What about the bonding MO - isn't it creating s single MO from two?
What do you mean?
s single? Sigma?
So when there is a Bonding MO from two MO is created one.
No no!
No no!
That picture is misleading.
It's showing the possibilities.
Not the real numbers.
It says something like
> Two AOs either form a sigma or sigma star orbital.
But isn't the sigma star orbital actually 2 separate orbitals?
No.
That's its very shape.
17:05
a shape which is formed of two separated shapes?
And contains 2 electrons?
Yes. Haha I love chemistry!
With same spins
?
No. Different spins.
Well isn't what defines an antibonding MO that the electrons have the same spin so that they can't form an electron double?
Or I get something very wrong
hello! @M.A.Ramezani
17:11
Hullo @Dane!
@FISOCPP I've never heard anything like that.
AT last , today I decided to fast.
IMO, an antibonding MO has a lot of its electron could density away from the space between atoms.
So, it's so high in energy, it's unstable.
So, it hates the bond and they fight.
@Levy How was it?
perfect, I had not been thirsty at all.
but that was a energy less day today.
sleepy day
bored day
awful day
OK now that doesn't have much to do with fasting.
let's talk about volley ball.
17:16
OK.
If Poland win Russia , It will be difficult for us.
And it will.
We still have to do our best.
my انظباط is 18.
today,my mother was gone and correct it.
to 19-20.
I recommend you to say your mother and father to do so.
17:19
We did protest.
15 is really dangerous
2-1 Poland leads and 4th set is 18-21
Russia really screwed up this time.
yeah
2-2
well done.
25-20
@M.A.Ramezani
17:36
I am seeing the results.
me too
9-8
9-9
Don't post them here.
10-9
10-10
11-11
12-12
12-13
13
14-14
stupid guys lost the game.
@M.A.Ramezani
I knew it! Iran have to play good themselves.
They shouldn't depend on other teams' loss.
IT is really difficult now.
the result are extraordinary similar
 
2 hours later…
19:50
lol, the mystery random downvoter got me again...
20:07
@santiago They did?
Too bad I'm not that evil to support their preference.
Damn this internet. My internet's exceptionally slow today.
20:33
@Levy Ooo, our team beat Russia, yesss... ;)
21:14
So a covalent bond can share only a single electron?
And 3 electrons?
OMG
What is this?
21:36
@M.A.Ramezani yup, another one of my questions have been downvoted
do i get a prize?
@Mithoron not beating, but that was good.
@M.A.Ramezani
Jan
Jan
22:22
@M.A.Ramezani You got flagged? D=
@FISOCPP Think of the $\sigma ^*$ orbital like a p-orbital: That has two lobes of different phase although it is only populated by one or two electrons (and two only if their spins differ). It’s just a nodal plane through the bond axis. Or think of it like a 2nd order vibrating guitar string: There’s a spot in the middle where it doesn’t vibrate = in orbital terms, amplitude is zero = no chance of finding an electon = not part of the drawing.
So you take two s-orbitals to create one bonding $\sigma$ orbital and because you need to end up with two orbitals, you create another one, which, due to maths, has to have the antibonding shape with the nodal plane. But it still is one further orbital.
Every one of these orbitals can be populated by up to two electrons; if there are two, they must have antiparallel spins.
@M.A.Ramezani And markdown is working again. Weird²

« first day (1150 days earlier)      last day (3536 days later) »