« first day (2144 days earlier)      last day (2540 days later) » 

02:27
Can’t (iii) exhibit geometrical isomerism? I mean it has one common heteroatom on both carbon. Correct me if I’m wrong, do we require both heteroatoms to be common?
03:11
@MollyCooL the left carbon has both its groups same; so no GI possible
 
2 hours later…
05:36
Oh!
Wait the questions count is 25574, im pretty sure last night it was over 25600. Why does the count go down? This happened not once but thrice
Is it just me?
@MollyCooL Automated deletion system
Oh! Why?
what questions get deleted? Duplicate ones?
06:00
@MollyCooL
239
Q: Enable automatic deletion of old, unanswered, zero-score questions after a year?

Jeff AtwoodRelated to Meta Super User efforts: Old unanswered inactive questions with low views/votes and Meta Server Fault efforts: Cleaning house, really old, unloved questions We already auto-remove negatively voted unanswered old questions automatically after 30 days, network wide, with no human int...

@AvnishKabaj that check runs everyday
i'm surprised more than 26 questions got the hammer in one day
Well neatly all the questions are downvoted now days
The rate must be picking up or a mod did some cleaning
Does this happen in all communities?
Okay just checked!
Thanks
 
2 hours later…
07:55
chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4168/31775 There really should be a way to edit questions without bumping them on to the front page. That would solve the biggest problem.
08:06
@ApoorvPotnis But it's sort of necessary for the posts to be bumped up.
08:27
@AvnishKabaj Editing posts without bumping can be given a privilege to high rep users. Minor formatting changes do not need to be bumped.
08:46
@ApoorvPotnis But they do need to be reviewed once
@ApoorvPotnis bumping ensures that new edits are reviewed by the community
@AvnishKabaj Dude two spaces for a line break is enough plzzzz stop holding down on your space bar arrggghhhhh
also don't \mathrm on fractions without unit
also, don't write page numbers because they always change across editions
instead chapter number and question number
should be mentioned
 
2 hours later…
11:22
this user just opened the can of worms chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/92029/…
cc @ApoorvPotnis @AvnishKabaj @Abcd @Rick
recall our old discussion?
Feb 21 at 15:21, by Abcd
@GaurangTandon I don't get why methanol is more acidic than water. I saw this:
@GaurangTandon Yeah...
Feb 22 at 7:48, by Abcd
Also, please accept it now. Methanol *is* more acidic than water.
Sources:
Stack Exchange Answer with two sub sources
Solomon Frhyle
Morrison Boyd
LG Wade
anyone having the energy to write him an answer? i lost mine while trying to have the discussion back then, this seems to be an extremely touchy subject
11:51
@GaurangTandon Methanol is more acidic than water.
14
Q: Why is methanol more acidic than water?

DissenterMethanol 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 ...

12:23
@AvnishKabaj rick had many arguments against it.
[Question #ConceptBased]:
For an adiabatic process, two states connected by an irreversible path can never be connected by a reversible path.
Proof:
$\Delta U = \Delta W$
U is a state function.
W is a path function.
So in adiabatic process we can never reach the same state through two different paths.
Now, Atkins' Physical Chemistry mentions:
@AvnishKabaj i guess there was some problem based on the solvent associated
@Abcd you could just write "a concept based question" xD
But the problem is we cannot define a reversible path for an adiabatic irreversible process.
If that's the case, how would we calculate the entropy change for an adiabatic irreversible process?
[Question ends]
@Abcd dS is always defined as q_{rev}/T
12:28
1 min ago, by Abcd
But the problem is we cannot define a reversible path for an adiabatic irreversible process.
Because work in irreversible and reversible processes are different/
4 mins ago, by Abcd
For an adiabatic process, two states connected by an irreversible path can never be connected by a reversible path.
Mind=Blown @GaurangTandon ?
yep
i'll admit
Okay, I'll have to ask that on SE then
do you have cengage?
@Abcd
@GaurangTandon Not of physical chem
I just have cengage of maths and mechanics
@Abcd it does the same thing as given in peter atkins
wait
you post the question
i'll add the relevant bits from cengage
@Abcd but i think there's a problem here
can't two or more paths have the same $\Delta U$?
even if there are only two such paths, let one of them be conservative and the other be nonconservative
12:36
@GaurangTandon W_irrev is different from W_rev for the same \Delta U
= Contradiction
So you cant connect them
But it's defined lyk day don't use brain
@Abcd why can they not be equal?
@AvnishKabaj :/ . Please be clear..I don't get you...
Some scientists must have sat down done some science and defined that we have to take q rev
@AvnishKabaj dude he's asking a diff question
12:40
@GaurangTandon We can't draw paths so it's not possible, right
ah nvm you're right
@Abcd go ahead and post the question
@GaurangTandon Wait a second. Just give me a reason why they cant be same
5 mins ago, by Gaurang Tandon
@Abcd why can they not be equal?
@Abcd if you draw their graphs like this image.slidesharecdn.com/…
you'll notice W_{irrev} is always approaching W_{rev} as the number of reactangular bars in the graph is approaching infinity (no. of rectangular bars = steps in the process; infinite steps=> reversible)
$\text{mathjax test message}$
@GaurangTandon:
0
Q: How would one calculate the entropy change for an adiabatic irreversible process?

AbcdIf two states $A$ and $ B$ are connected by a reversible path, they can never be connected by an irreversible path during an adiabatic process because: $\underbrace{\Delta U}_{\text{state function}} = \underbrace{\Delta W}_{\text{path function}}$ And $W_{reversible}> W_{irreversible}$ Now, At...

12:59
@orthocresol chemists wanna make use of everything, so 1 good question out of 10 satisfies some people,
it depends on what you define as a good question, though
There was more negativity in the recent meta post than I'd expect.
The editing one?
And everyone who participated is partly to blame
Except @hBy2Py. Damn that guy. Brian for president
Also my blameness factor is like d orbital contribution and hybridization
minimal, but non-zero
13:03
Thank you captain Obvious
your welcome
My welcome what
ur welcom
@orthocresol now that's correct grammatically
@GaurangTandon Are you sure work done in irreversible compression> reversible compression? Can you prove it?
13:13
@Abcd saw the graph?
13:25
in my most humble opinion, if anyone had problems with the edits I perform (the rate/the triviality/whatever) - which they obviously do given the recent meta post - they could have always pinged me in chat, or in the comments section to any of my edits, or anywhere - at least nudge me in the right direction as soon as you find any problem; why wait for for that tension to build up? if Dave (or anyone) would have told me to slow down a month ago, I would have definitely slowed down
@M.A.R. Ennh, I'm not totally blameless. If I'd been more engaged, I might've realized @Gaurang's enthusiasm was leading to a too-rapid pace of minor edits.
I thought @Mart the unpingable had probably already given The Editing Talk
I'm just glad I didn't come across the meta post any later than I did.
You ended up on the rough end of the site's tendency to be too grumpy, @Gaurang. It's a problem we've not really figured out how to sand down.
13:45
@hBy2Py ugh, you're too good. Get out of here
@GaurangTandon @Gau I have a problem with your edits.
@hBy2Py me too. It's amazing how even he forgot
I mean, he's such a boreaucrat
@GaurangTandon Just, I have a problem with your edits
There should be meta post for new editors
@M.A.R. i meant what are they?
@GaurangTandon I have no idea
Ha, trolling successful
14:23
Can p-benzoquinone tautomerize to benzene-1,4-diol?
14:34
This is what my book says
ok never mind..my book uses acid while the wikipedia page uses a base..
@GaurangTandon NCERT 11th page 171 ,part 1 contradicts my answer..
1
Q: What is an irreversible reaction? Is it possible to answer this on the basis of thermodynamics?

AbcdChem.libretexts and almost all sites out their tell that an irreversible reaction is a unidirectional reaction and the chemical equation includes $\rightarrow$ instead of $\ce{<=>}: $ A fundamental concept of chemistry is that chemical reactions occurred when reactants reacted with each oth...

On that meta post: Is it not possible that the edited posts don't get automatically bumped to the homepage unless they are edited by the OP?
Like I edited my question rn with more details so that it gets more attention.
I certainly don't want it to get lost because of freshly edited posts
 
1 hour later…
16:12
@Mithoron what do you mean by “you didn’t define strength of metallic bond for yourself? chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/92014/…
I dont get you
16:28
@MollyCooL Exactly what I said. If you ask about something, you need you understand what your asking about. What is this strength your asking about?
16:50
Strength of the attractive force between the metal atoms and sea of electrons
17:07
@Mithoron
 
3 hours later…
20:03
Please don't flag answers you disagree with.
Flagging is for answers that should be deleted. Downvotes are for answers that you don't like.
We should really stop closing things we don't consider as HW as HW.
A question about something in a HW question that shows OP gave it some thought is NOT closable HW.
A HW question that shows effort and thought from OP is NOT closable
Of course, "I think this haz two due wiht science" is not effort, but you can tell when someone doesn't want to get their tomorrow school chores done and they're trying to learn.
IOW, please don't VTC questions you don't like.
I might bookmark and link to this in future wrong VTCs.
20:54
Random comic
Now I fear for the txtspk doods' health

« first day (2144 days earlier)      last day (2540 days later) »