Editing Talk:1442: Chemistry
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
:...I'm not saying it's not possible, but bond-types (there's at least three types to consider, depending on how you group them) and compatability with valid bond-angles (which really needs 3d glyphs with subtly different forms?) and then you end up with slvery similar forms between near-substitute elements that tend to be 'the same but slightly larger' in a bonding situation, etc. | :...I'm not saying it's not possible, but bond-types (there's at least three types to consider, depending on how you group them) and compatability with valid bond-angles (which really needs 3d glyphs with subtly different forms?) and then you end up with slvery similar forms between near-substitute elements that tend to be 'the same but slightly larger' in a bonding situation, etc. | ||
:A less symbolic and more diagrammatic atomic illustration method might be easier to reuse as an alphabet, than the alphabet is to entirely reuse for diagrammatical purposes. But I'm sure with enough tweaking you could get something that works in limited ways. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.126|172.70.91.126]] 01:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC) | :A less symbolic and more diagrammatic atomic illustration method might be easier to reuse as an alphabet, than the alphabet is to entirely reuse for diagrammatical purposes. But I'm sure with enough tweaking you could get something that works in limited ways. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.126|172.70.91.126]] 01:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |