« first day (1240 days earlier)      last day (1525 days later) » 

Jan
1:00 PM
'Allene' doesn't work, because that's CH2CCH2.
 
@Jan @Loong is your guy.
 
user161117
wait what are you looking to name specifically I don't know if I'm on the same page as you
 
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M dating again?
 
@Loong Some people never learn . . .
 
Jan
Dating? Whom?
@StevenGrigsby propene.
 
1:01 PM
@Jan me?
 
Haha I love misunderstandings.
 
Jan
awww, @Loong and @inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M ; what a perfect couple =*,...,*=
 
user161117
In chemistry, vinyl or ethenyl is the functional group −CH=CH2, namely the ethylene molecule (H2C=CH2) minus one hydrogen atom. The name is also used for any compound containing that group, namely R−CH=CH2 where R is any other group of atoms. An industrially important example is vinyl chloride, precursor to PVC, a plastic commonly known as vinyl. Vinyl is one of the alkenyl functional groups. On a carbon skeleton, sp2-hybridized carbons or positions are often called vinylic. Allyls, acrylates and styrenics contain vinyl groups. (A styrenic crosslinker with two vinyl groups is called divinyl benzene...
 
user161117
idk like the functional group or like something more
 
Vinyl is old name.
I don't think you do IUPAC with old names.
It's retained, prolly.
 
1:02 PM
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M yes, retained for general nomenclature
 
user161117
Yeah well I'm just asking as far as to clarify what he's asking to name haha
 
Jan
Because ethenyl is longer
 
ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ For once I'm right.
 
Jan
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M At least he's admitting to be wrong most of the time!
 
I'm only wrong when @Martin's around.
 
user161117
1:04 PM
why
 
Jan
Which is almost always.
 
user161117
haha
 
Jan
Because @Martin is our god and emperor and therefore always correct.
 
user161117
oh shit
 
user161117
do I have to sacrifice virgins to him
 
1:05 PM
Because @Mart's sausages look delicious.
Because @Mart's German.
 
user161117
kinky
 
The possibilities are endless!
 
Jan
Also thanks @soundslikefiziks for your question, that looks like its turning into a nice answer of mine =D I like virtual badges =D
Also, I'll be leaving for the weekend now =D Good things when there's not much to do on Fridays xD. See ya round o/
 
\o
@Martin while you're asleep, I'll probably take the liberty of sweeping the front page with retags, BWAHHAHAHA.
Just kidding, I'll do twenty every hour.
 
@Jan i knew you were flying somewhere!
 
1:16 PM
@Martin-マーチン Thanks. I can't vote for my own post even as CW
so just one more person needs to upvote chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/37425/…
then it will be back to neutral and we can lock it (if that's appropriate)
 
1:32 PM
I'll head out to my extended weekend... it's sliver week in japan, so I might not be around to lock it for some time... see y'all later ;)
 
@Martin-マーチン Happy holidays!
 
2:13 PM
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M @StevenGrigsby Tippers of the world unite! say no to emotional extortion!
Don't worry, I'm not reopening the topic :)
 
user161117
lol
 
user161117
hey what kinds of math/physics/chemistry do you like?
 
Trigonometry
Electricity
 
I like chemistry. All of it. All of it that's actually science.
 
2:18 PM
What isn't science ?
i mean , under chemistry
 
Oversimplifications. Pedantry. Prescriptive nonexistent "rules".
 
like not taking into consideration 3d movements of molecules ?
 
as an example of too simplified formulas
 
user161117
huh what do you mean, so much of chemistry is approximations
 
2:21 PM
@StevenGrigsby Approximations based on calculation is different from saying "all atoms must have 8 valence electrons to be stable".
 
user161117
I guess what's an example of a simplification that's acceptable maybe I misunderstand you when you say oversimplification
 
user161117
Oh yeah, I agree the octet rule is kinda garbage
 
user161117
it's just like teaching kids "FOIL"
 
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M wait, i'm just starting my learning , i should ignore the octet rule ??
 
user161117
Eh, I mean if you're serious about chemistry you'll learn eventually that it's nothing special
 
2:23 PM
@soundslikefiziks No, but don't take it seriously.
Chemistry's like this: If you ever saw an awesome molecule that trips over anything you studied, don't be surprised.
Then you'll be fine.
 
please don't tell me it's like electronics, where only recently i found out that i had so many misconceptions (amasci.com/miscon/eleca.html)
 
The Chemistry teachers teach has a lot of misconceptions, not much of which can be found on the Net.
 
user161117
Eh, I mean the octet rule isn't the devil though, I mean i wouldn't expect them to start from quantum mechanics to explain the rule
 
Yes, that's one reason.
 
user161117
there's way too much in chemistry to start it without making some pretty bad things to get people to dive in
 
2:26 PM
We can start with "all chemical bonds are based on electrostatics"
 
user161117
Errr they're not
 
first misconception already?!?!
 
The reason I believe myself to be lucky is that whenever my teacher teaches me curricular garbage, he says "this is scientifically wrong though. Read about blah and bleh to see why."
 
user161117
I mean that's important but the octet rule and all this is quantum mechanics
 
@soundslikefiziks Oversimplification.
 
user161117
2:27 PM
well, I wouldn't quite say you can separate the two since they both exist
 
Wait, can you give me one chemical bond that has nothing to do with electrons ?
 
The easiest, most digestible way to study chemistry is to study seemingly easy molecules, then head on to harder ones @Sound.
 
user161117
bonding involves electrostatics but if it was purely electrostatics you'd have no orbital structure I think just pure electrons between protons
 
user161117
Like pi-bonds don't make sense in terms of electrostatics I think
 
Hmm, we could say that actually.
 
2:29 PM
the electrons just occupy the "allowed" energy levels by the quantum theory , but still. it's electrons and protones interacting in the bond
 
But so much lies beneath those words @Sound.
Yeah.
 
user161117
Yeah, also, there are antibonding orbitals and the Pauli exclusion principle at play
 
user161117
Without QM you could just have any electrons anywhere
 
user161117
no restrictions
 
everywhere around the atom ? or literally everywhere?
 
user161117
2:31 PM
all the properties of the periodic table would probably not be very interesting, since "Carbon forming 4 bonds" would not really be a thing
 
user161117
at that point, atoms just amount to having larger positive charge
 
user161117
What do you mean?
 
user161117
It's just a hypothetical scenario kind of trying to describe what a world without QM might look like so
 
user161117
it's not super serious or well thought out since it's not real
 
user161117
like radicals, they don't make sense unless you have QM, if you're familiar with radicals
 
2:33 PM
And wouldn't highly positive charged atoms be attracted to a negatively charge atom and create another interaction caused by electrostatics
Radicals in the the Schrödinger equation ?
 
user161117
Huh, no
 
user161117
I mean unpaired electrons
 
user161117
there's no reason within the framework of electrostatics that would make an "unpaired electron" somehow more reactive
 
i'm still having time understanding the paired electrons
 
user161117
2:35 PM
Right, well for instance you're familiar with the concept of the "octet rule" even if it is a bad thing
 
user161117
it's not that bad but whatever for this discussion we can expand on it later
 
Wait, what exactly are you currently studying?
 
and it just looks logical
 
user161117
Why do halogens gain an electron?
 
user161117
2:36 PM
It doesn't make much sense that it would prefer to be unbalanced in charge from the perspective of electrostatics
 
@StevenGrigsby It's delicious.
 
user161117
in an electrostatic world I'd imagine all atoms to be neutral
 
wait, i need to see halogens atom structure
 
user161117
they're the second to last column on the periodic table
 
those who have equal amount of electrons and protons will
or is that another misconception ?
 
2:36 PM
Yes, but what are you studying?
Electronic configurations?
Octet rule?
Periodic trends?
 
user161117
@soundslikefiziks I don't understand your question
 
i guess basic atomic physics
 
It's just so much to be in a single gulp.
 
it's all connected on that level, that i try to grasp
 
user161117
Yeah atomic physics is not the same thing as general chemistry
 
2:38 PM
what do you mean ?
 
user161117
For the most part, chemists don't care about atoms
 
What are your sources?
 
user161117
they care about electrons
 
books and too many online tutorial posts youtube lectures
 
user161117
well, depends on who you talk to, but physicists care more about atoms and chemists care more about electrons haha
 
2:38 PM
basically nothing
 
Yes, they don't care as much as they care for around the nucleus.
 
user161117
around and sometimes inside :P
 
wait wait, but if you could say that it's all about electrostatics, then yes, it is exactly connected
how can it even be seperated ?
 
@soundslikefiziks Well "positive attracts negative" is what you're gonna use for many of your reasoning.
 
user161117
because these are just models of reality
 
2:39 PM
i mean , i can understand how a computer language and a resistor have different levels of relationships
 
user161117
and they're not real
 
user161117
so you can look at the coulomb law and see there's nothing really there to give us stuff like the octet rule or pi-bonding (that I can see)
 
@Sounds like don't start with many sources. Just start with chemguide and chemwiki-UCDavis.
 
yes, also the concept of charge is ambiguous
but still, things do happen and attractions do occur
 
user161117
how is charge ambiguous?
 
2:41 PM
@StevenGrigsby Why does a positive charge attract a negative charge?
 
user161117
electrons hold a negative charge, protons hold a single positive charge, and atoms are defined by how many protons they have
 
yes, exactly,
But,
 
> What does negative charge mean?
 
user161117
No one can answer why questions in physics or chemistry
 
user161117
we can only assign models and say, "Oh hey this works"
 
2:42 PM
@StevenGrigsby Physics and chemistry exist to answer "why"s.
 
user161117
Why does this invisible force called gravity pull me down?
 
user161117
No one knows why
 
but you give it a value
 
user161117
but Einstein gave a better description of it than Newton
 
The more we understand, the better and harder the whys are explained.
 
2:42 PM
a constant
where does coulombs constant come into place?
 
user161117
What does negative charge mean? Depends on what you mean when you ask that
 
you just know the directions and some number of a force he calcualted called "charge"
 
user161117
for instance, you could say, a proton isn't really a single positive charge
 
user161117
it's really two +2/3 charges and one -1/3 charge
 
oh ok, so the completed "missing" charge will be accomplished by adding the missing electron ?
if (-) charge could even be considered as "missing"
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Thanks for the chemguide and chemwiki-UCDavis reference
 
user161117
2:46 PM
That's essentially how the positron was conjectured and eventually disovered
 
user161117
but no, that's not really what I was saying
 
ok go on
 
user161117
I was just saying that protons are made up of 3 quarks, 2 up and 1 down
 
I really dunno what we're trying to get at here.
@soundslikefiziks Welcome!
 
user161117
I didn't think we were getting at anything specific
 
user161117
2:47 PM
just general understanding of chemistry haha
 
ok, but before getting deeper into the proton, why can i understand gravity more simply while in the case of electrostatics i cant ?
 
user161117
?
 
@soundslikefiziks Gravity exists IRL in a simpler form.
 
user161117
No one understands gravity so
 
i mean , there are levels of knowledge , why can't i choose not to go into the quantum mechanics and simply grasp it all on the "superficial" level of, protons have a charge electrons have a charge, they interact and the field looks like this <some vector field graph>
 
2:50 PM
@soundslikefiziks You can choose that.
Many people do.
 
user161117
yeah I'm not stopping you haha
 
up till yesterday i thought electrons actually move really fast inside a conductor, only to find out they don't
 
user161117
I'll even try to help haha
 
they actually move really slow
 
user161117
Yeah haha that's a fun misconception
 
user161117
2:51 PM
"how do they travel from the light switch to the light so fast!"
 
user161117
they don't, but electrons pushing each other with the electric field is what propagates at the speed of light, like beads on a chain
 
well i thought they travel at the speed of light
 
user161117
Yeah here's a similar question to test your understanding
 
user161117
if I poke you with a stick, the end moves instantaneously
 
user161117
so if I create a stick longer than a lightyear, can I push it and poke someone and communicate faster than the speed of light?
 
2:52 PM
but this was my problem , i thought that on one side you have those electronless protons , eager to meet their partners to fill up their emptyness and on the other side there are those ..... oh wait, it's starting to look like sperm cells and an egg
 
user161117
haha
 
user161117
Who knew the circle of life was really just a giant circuit?
 
yes
a huge baloon
oh you said circuit
i thought you meant the egg
deleting subconscious in 3.. 2... 1
 
user161117
haha
 
So no protons are waiting on the other side ?
i can get how AC makes electrons oscillate
wiggle in place
 
user161117
2:57 PM
protons?
 
well, atoms containing protons with insufficient eletrons
 
user161117
Nah, the metal of the wire has a lotta energy levels that the protons can occupy called bands so that it can allow electrons to easily move between them
 
You know who i need to blame ?
That damn Bucket analogy
 
user161117
so they are kinda easily shuffled back and forth
 
or Water flow analogy
 
user161117
2:58 PM
haha no I think the bucket analogy is good
 
user161117
for this at least
 
i used to thing the holes actually reach to the other side
so everything was logical
 
user161117
well there is hole theory of electron flows which you can think of as a positive charge flowing in the opposite direction to the electron flow
 

« first day (1240 days earlier)      last day (1525 days later) »