:: deleted || This one contains a "trick" (hardly) that's part of a too-easy stoichiometry problem: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/66925/…

(and should be deleted)

this would be a lot easier if I ever learned what a half reaction was...

Help me: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/15940/…

Help me: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/58522/…

As opposed to this one, where I think bon's answer is easy to follow: chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/29002/194

Help me: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/46299/…

this answer is great, but doesn't it need a reference/citation to verify its claims?

This happens a lot with expert-type answers

And can sometimes mask some nonsense

That one looks ok, but it would benefit even from Wikipedia-type references

yep, agreed

A good question that will probably die due to the homework policy

Isn't that in an undergraduate organic textbook?

@pentavalentcarbon vote to delete

@pentavalentcarbon wasn't in mine; I couldn't find it on googling :/

@pentavalentcarbon i think we can let it live, as it is also popular; the question is well-thought out, and I disagree with downvoting well-researched duplicates (there's also a meta post about it which I can't find atm)

ok

I can't find it in Bruice. That's the first time I've cracked my organic textbook in...at least 7 years.

@pentavalentcarbon it's an easy question but...vote to delete

@pentavalentcarbon nah, it seems good enough; a popular well-thought out query with a good answer

oh my, that's quite the question... chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/98097/194

@pentavalentcarbon I am not even able to understand the question. Are you able to?

yes, it's...

it belongs here, but no one can answer it, I guarantee it

@pentavalentcarbon why?

@orthocresol we can't move it to Phy.SE either because they don't accept such bad questions; on the other hand, deleting it doesn't seem optimal because it has 31kviews :/ I suggest mod-reopening the question, cleaning it up, and then locking the question

otoh, we have 57 questions about electromagnetic-radiation, so I doubt if that question is really off-topic to begin with...

@GaurangTandon Ivan's answer is confusing to me, and I don't think guest's answer is as good as it could be (I'd rather see equations than all the words)

nvm I understand Ivan's prompt...I don't think it's a good answer for a beginner even though it's a valid way of looking at it

@pentavalentcarbon on the contrary, i think guest's answer is good enough; it describes the crucial parts and leaves it upto the student to write the equations

Then I'm sticking it in the dupe queue.

redox equations have a different, and easier method of balancing, so the dupe closure may not be that good... :(

(side note: please reopen)

I haven't balanced an equation in 10 years, so I didn't know that, unless you mean all the stuff you need to add for half reactions

@pentavalentcarbon the "Simplest way to balance any chemical equation" is essentially a mathematical approach; but in redox reactions, we can easily get the coefficients of the oxd. agent and the red. agent by watching the change in oxidation numbers <-- that's what I meant

yes the rest is just adding water, hydronium, hydroxide and finally adding the two half reactions

Oh, I only know the "mathematical approach", but not the linear algebra approach

I also really don't understand the question you want reopened

What's the "1" everywhere in the phase diagram?

And what does "intermetallic" have to do with anything, isn't this diagram very general?

good points, I didn't see them before. please comment these points there

Done

thanks

Is this the right way to typeset the reference? chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/97756/194

i have the book, let me add the page numbers

:: I just deleted it, if you're trying to get it roomba'd, this is faster./ one more downvote needed: chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/27615/5026

Do we have any canonical questions other than chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/69798/194?

@pentavalentcarbon i dunno; see the Giant List of Duplicates meta post; we might have some canonicals there

CP proposed: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/59078/… <self-note>

that's a nice plot

Ok, it's my bedtime

good night!

I'll share my totally incomplete list of notes, one moment...

gist.github.com/55d160950ef52640c5a1702c9c7442e9

the only thing I really learned today is that the half-reaction stuff is different from the usual redox case, not even counting the way you mentioned which you'll have to link for me

@pentavalentcarbon wonderful! can you make it a proper github file though so I can make pull requests when possible?

@pentavalentcarbon and what's up with those huge headings on $$ \begin{pmatrix} \ce{Cu} \ \ce{S} o.O

@GaurangTandon done, check your email

@GaurangTandon something is wrong with parsing the math block, I'll look at it later

sure, great!

Update on my first RFCP post on Nomenclature of binary (inorganic) compounds: The main post has 1170 words (not counting the other 400 which I deleted in subsequent revisions). It will also require three additional Q&A posts to cover some important sub-topics (which I am yet to write). So, a total of four main-site questions in all. Phew!