@Martin-マーチン I looked at it, decided I didn't really want to read it, read it anyway, and decided I certainly didn't want to try to understand it...

... ok. It appears to me that part (a), maybe (b), are the only bits that has anything substantial to answer, and it is just basic stoichiometry, which we (imo) really don't need to retain. (c) and (d) are silly errors, the equivalent of typos on SO. And the entire question is basically a giant amirite as the opening paragraph indicates.

I honestly wouldn't be against deleting it.

Goodness knows who the 5 upvoters were. By the way, I looked at the asker's profile and I saw two other candidates that I would nominate for express deletion (I think they come under our current query anyway):

:: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/41165/… del m.

:: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/41208/… del m.

while we're at it, could we remove the following hint-answer on the previous question (which I un-oneboxed):

@orthocresol Actually, that was kind of what I wanted to hear... I'll just go ahead and do the deed.

@orthocresol They wouldn't have for quite some time, because we're skimming from the top now.

@orthocresol I've flagged it, so it should pop up in the queue, but you can also handle the flag from the dash board.

If written up our process again, if there's anything left unsaid, please add it.

I wonder if we should close the old post as a dupe of that one.

Dupe closing would make sense. Maybe with an additional note in the post itself to explain why we're redirecting people.

50!

@orthocresol Okay, I'll get to it tomorrow. Need a break now.

@Martin-マーチン Nice to see the meta post

:: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/22326/… del m.

Could we do out with this? The question might be fine, but nothing much added to it.