Editing Talk:1442: Chemistry

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png 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 32: Line 32:
  
 
Question: does N(itrogen) only have two bonds, or are those angles a different kind of bond (perhaps ionic vs covalent)?  If so, tungsten (W) would be interesting, for a start...  (In fact, going though the elements in my head, from the monoglyph elements it would be the most complex under this system.  The diglyphs might give Meitnerium (Mt... but was that previously Une as a systematic triglyph?) or Thulium (Tm) some interesting qualities, depending on how the system actually works.  Triglyphs are always intended to be replaced, so I think those are moot.
 
Question: does N(itrogen) only have two bonds, or are those angles a different kind of bond (perhaps ionic vs covalent)?  If so, tungsten (W) would be interesting, for a start...  (In fact, going though the elements in my head, from the monoglyph elements it would be the most complex under this system.  The diglyphs might give Meitnerium (Mt... but was that previously Une as a systematic triglyph?) or Thulium (Tm) some interesting qualities, depending on how the system actually works.  Triglyphs are always intended to be replaced, so I think those are moot.
:Wow, is this a serious question or are you just trolling for conspiracy nuts? Of course the conspiracy theorists will tell you that before the invention of printing all the angles were curves, and they were compressed to tight angles to make blocks of movable type smaller and cheaper. Reputable experimental chemists, however, have reported that the bonds between two tungstens is stronger than between two uraniums and we can attribute the difference to the angles. It is fairly evident that right angles (e.g. at the upper left corners of "F" and "P") are essentially inert, and it appears that bond strength increases as the angle becomes more acute. Opposing angles (e.g. "K") seem to Kancel each other out. This is still a very contentious topic![[User:DivePeak|DivePeak]] ([[User talk:DivePeak|talk]]) 05:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
+
:Wow, is this a serious question or are you just trolling for conspiracy nuts? Of course the conspiracy theorists will tell you that before the invention of printing all the angles were curves, and they were compressed to tight angles to make blocks of movable type smaller and cheaper. Reputable experimental chemists, however, have reported that the bonds between two tungstens is stronger than between two uraniums and we can attribute the difference to the angles. It is fairly evident that right angles (e.g. at the upper left corners of "F" and "P") are essentially inert, and it appears that bond strength increases as the angle becomes more acute. Opposing angles (e.g. "K") seem to Kancel each other out. This is still a very contentious topic!  
  
 
As for symbols that ''are'' accurate, there are a number of systems.  Hydrogen is represented on the "gold discs" on the Voyager spacecraft (as a starting key to easily decode other information on there) but without a complete overhaul of a system, I'd imagine ''no'' advanced civilisation will have started out with "let's show it how it actually works" (accurately, and without elements such as phlogiston creeping in!) before giving arbitrary names.  Electron-orbital diagrams probably work well, though, for some things.  And something that reveals the (for example) pi-bonds works better in combinatory diagrams. I think.  It's been a while since I did any serious chemistry.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.112|141.101.99.112]] 14:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 
As for symbols that ''are'' accurate, there are a number of systems.  Hydrogen is represented on the "gold discs" on the Voyager spacecraft (as a starting key to easily decode other information on there) but without a complete overhaul of a system, I'd imagine ''no'' advanced civilisation will have started out with "let's show it how it actually works" (accurately, and without elements such as phlogiston creeping in!) before giving arbitrary names.  Electron-orbital diagrams probably work well, though, for some things.  And something that reveals the (for example) pi-bonds works better in combinatory diagrams. I think.  It's been a while since I did any serious chemistry.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.112|141.101.99.112]] 14:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Template used on this page: