explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3040: Chemical Formulas

2025-01-22T17:15:33Z

172.68.245.185:

I believe the diagram on the left incorrectly shows a double-bond between the carbon and the OH pair. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 03:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:: ''"incorrectly shows a double-bond"'' This may be more correct (there are many ways to draw it):
:: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/formic-acid-molecule-structure-260nw-1359283460.jpg [[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 03:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::what’s a double bond? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 04:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: if a hydrogen atom had hands it would have one and could only hold other atoms with one hand. Some atoms have more than one hand and in the case of a double bond can hold another atom with two hands. I almost recall something about electron orbits and spaces. I hope this isn't to unhelpful.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.58|108.162.242.58]] 05:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::ohhhh, i think i get it now. thanks! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 05:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::For the molecules concerned (and ignoring some more exotic situations), you just need to know that;
::::::*Hydrogen should have only one bond in total (H-C... or H-O..., in whatever direction. An H-H would be H2, or hydrogen (probably!) gas unbonded to anything else).
::::::*Oxygen should have two bonds (...X-O-Y... as part of a link between X and Y, like the (acceptibly abbreviated) -OH ('hydroxy') group attached to a carbon; or ...C=O, as oxygen double-bonded to a carbon with those two bonds available). H-O-H would be water (H2O), O=O would be the pure oxygen molecule (O2).
::::::*Carbon has ''four'' bonds, which can be:
::::::**Four singles, often with alkane links, ...C-C... with three things (more carbons, hydrogens or hydroxys/etc) hanging off as well, as part of a hydrocarbon/similar, starting with CH4 which has ''only'' hydrogens hanging directly off the one and only carbon, longer chained alkanes string carbons together with two hydrogens off of each mid-carbon (in three-or-more chains) and a third completing each end.
::::::**Two singles and a double, like the ...C=O with two further off-shoots, or else an ...C=C... as an alkene link (with two things/continuations of carbon hanging off each of the ends of that carbon-pair),
::::::**''Two'' doubles (cumulenes, like ...C=C=C..., are rare, but O=C=O is the really common CO2/carbon dioxide molecule in its entirety), or
::::::**A single and a triple, typically back-to-back as alkynes, ...-C≡C-..., ''or'' something like -C≡N (nitrogen has exactly three bonds!) for a cyano-group, but it's often a strained group.
::::::**A quadruple-bond would be... beyond this basic overview.
::::::**(Benzene rings effectively have 1.5 shared links between the adjacent carbons, or alternating single/double three times round the six Carbon-Carbon links, leaving one "hang off" bond from each of them, without bothering which ring-bonds are single or double.)
::::::**(Graphene sheets effectively have three singles, plus "two halves" weakly bonding to adjacent graphene sheets, in actual graphite; or whatever else fun thing you're doing with graphene/nanotubes/buckyballs ''singly''...)
::::::If you check the "Hackoo", the C has ''five'' bonds (at least until and unless Randall corrects it!), the error most obviously (just from the above knowledge!) because the O in the -OH (i.e. -O-H) has three bonds (...C=O-H) where it should only have two (...C-O-H).
:::::::If I still had access to the university and its DFT calculator, I'd be tempted to do a run how stable the ion HC+=O=O+H would be (HCOOH with two electrons removed, charge at C and O), the only way to make sense of the formula. And write an April article for the regular column of the German Chemists Society Newsletter. Here is the data of the monocation: https://atct.anl.gov/Thermochemical%20Data/version%201.140/species/?species_number=731 ...wait, did I just nerdsnipe myself?[[Special:Contributions/172.71.148.103|172.71.148.103]] 08:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It can perhaps be explained as an interestingly radical-enhanced number of bonds, though you'd notate it differently (in diagram ''and'' formula) and it wouldn't really be the ethanoic/formic acid that Cueball(/Randall) clearly intends it to be. Simple slip of the stylus, maybe, from someone more a physical scientist who [[520: Cuttlefish|isn't always affiliated to chemical sciences]], so may not have realised when glancing at the 'finished' comic. (Or it's yet another (too?) subtle dig at the Cueball character that he's set up to fail/be creatively-wrong.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.108|172.70.90.108]] 07:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Similar to 2492 [[User:Chakra|Chakra]] ([[User talk:Chakra|talk]]) 03:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

My favorite hydrocarbons are C6H6 (Bouba) and C5H12 (Kiki) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.105|172.69.70.105]] 03:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I assume 'Nackle' is NaCl (Sodium Chloride, aka salt) [[User:Pvnic|Pvnic]] ([[User talk:Pvnic|talk]]) 03:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
: for blood pressure reasons I use fake salt = potassium chloride. Note to self: don't say "please pass the kackle" because at best at best I'd get a funny look and a chicken nugget. (Thinking) Or do. Chicken nuggets are good.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.179|172.68.245.179]] 04:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Wouldn't that be more like "kickle" or "keckle"? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.173|162.158.212.173]] 07:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
And in the meta-humor department, the explanation message "Created by a BORON-OXYGEN-TANTALUM-URANIUM-TITANIUM-MOLYBDENUM-TITANIUM-CARBON-ALUMINUM-LITHIUM" abbreviates to "B O Ta U Ti Mo Ti C Al Li", or "BOT aUTiMoTiCaLLi". [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
: The bot probably drank too much choo-choo-oh (CH₃CH₂OH) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.187|162.158.103.187]] 15:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
: OH! Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.179|172.68.245.179]] 04:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:: In my family, we actually do (occasionally) call it "nackle", so I updated the explanation accordingly. [[User:Gbisaga|Gbisaga]] ([[User talk:Gbisaga|talk]]) 16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Guilty as charged! (And I got a Ph.D. in chemistry...) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.195.130|172.68.195.130]] 08:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:nice! which uni? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 22:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The 'put it on a plate' and 'take with a pinch of salt' stuff all seems a bit of a stretch.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.59|172.69.194.59]] 10:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't see any sign that anybody would anyone be literally requiring salt, so more probably is one or other figurative use. "Are you upset? I don't ''care'' you're upset. Pass the salt... Mmmmm..." from our Cueball or "Yeah, so I'm hearing what you're telling me, but I'm gonna ignore your inane mutterings, so pass the salt...". Or maybe from a similar sort of vein as "Are you salty about that? I think you're salty, boo-hoo!" sarcastic response. There are plenty of possible phrases using the substance in analogy, and I'm sure others could be imagined by anyone worth their salt. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.246|172.70.91.246]] 14:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::There's absolutely no indication that the title text is spoken by anyone in the comic. It's an example of a common phrase with the twist of using the phonetic pronunciation described here. It's supposed to be a secondary punchline of sorts, and overthinking it doesn't make it funnier. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.7|172.68.50.7]] 09:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Many TTs ''are'' clearly spoken by the comic's characters (some readily identifiable as one or other of the protagonist, antagonists or off-panel voices - restating their initial point and/or following-up their ripostes). Others are the "Voice of (Relative) Sanity" that is Randall, only then emerging out of the fourth wall (as a counterpoint to ''whatever'' his possible avatars on-page might be thinking or saying).
:::And it's also entirely consistent for it to be left flapping in the wind. Either it was left directly ambiguous, or (despite whatever intent), we're able to reinterpret according to our own individual impressions. I think it's not a problem to appreciate the different nuances.
:::The secondary punchline ''might'' be asking for salt as an accompaniment for the vinegar (if this isn't too {{w|Fish and chips#Accompaniments|anglocentric}} for Randall, as a Leftpondian himself who might not actually partake of that particular combination), but it does seem like it lacks any reason for the off-page switch from a 'presentation' on organic chemistry to some random cullinary scenario. As opposed to directly messing about with obtuse language, which flows straight into a metaphorical or figurative derision (from whoever, to whoever).
:::And "overthinking it" is ''very'' on-brand, from both creator and his fandom. I'd personally have no problem suggesting that the salt-request was primarily a put-down phrase, but with the possibility that it was ''actually'' about heretofor unreferenced table-salt, just so that no opinion (or lingering need for further satisfactory explanation) is left unsatisfied. It's all grist to the mill. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.99|141.101.99.99]] 15:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if this is inspired by people in Cyberpunk 2077 pronouncing CHOOH2 (the fuel cars are powered by in universe) as "chew two." [https://cyberpunk.fandom.com/wiki/CHOOH2#:~:text=CHOOH2%20is%20not%20actually%20the%20chemical%20formula%2C%20it%27s%20just%20a%20moniker%20for%20marketing%20purposes. Game wiki page.] [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.31|172.69.22.31]] 17:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Edible oil analysis is now like B-Box [[User:799571388|799571388]] ([[User talk:799571388|talk]]) 21:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Can we make an emperical formula-to-speech model? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.215.72|172.70.215.72]] 02:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:Oh definitely. I played with a text-to-speech freeware program back in the late '80s/early '90s that used the ''PC speaker'' to say things. Surprisingly well, for its simplicity, but you ideally needed to convert text to its syllabary to not just plough through what ''it'' thought it should, although English is tough ("... pl-a-ow th-r-oo w-ot IT th-or-t it sh-ud, awl-th-oh IN-g-l-isch iz t-uff", or similar, is what it really needed). I'd be surprised if Alexa-era synth software with another 30+ years of development (and actual soundchips, plus clock frequencies greater than at most the tens of megahertz of 286s/386s this would run on) don't have extensive pre-processing that could say something that derives from Cr2(CH3CO2)4(H2O)2 without batting a virtual eyelid ("Cratch Coho"?) — or at least not stumbling and stuttering. Assuming they don't use their amazing internet-connected reference system to look up and say "Chromium-2 acetate hydrate". ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.11|172.70.163.11]] 16:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There are certainly some chemical formulas that get pronounced this way. {{w|Dioxygen difluoride|FOOF}} comes to mind. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.40|162.158.79.40]] 17:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

3006: Demons

2024-11-15T00:25:41Z

172.68.245.185:

{{comic
| number = 3006
| date = November 1, 2024
| title = Demons
| image = demons_2x.png
| imagesize = 285x458px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Though they do appreciate how much he improved the heating system for the flame pit.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Maxwell's demon}} is a thought experiment devised by {{w|James Clerk Maxwell}} that appears to refute the {{w|second law of thermodynamics}}, which roughly says that heat always flows from hotter regions to colder. In the thought experiment, two chambers, both containing a gas at the same temperature, have a door between them. A being (later called a demon by {{w|Lord Kelvin}}) lets only fast-moving gas molecules move from the first chamber to the second, and only slow-moving ones move from the second chamber to the first. The second chamber's gas gradually warms as the average speed of its molecules increases, and the first chamber's gas likewise cools, apparently contradicting the second law. However, the actions of such a demon would use up at least the amount of energy that could later be extracted from having a gas separated into hot and cold parts, so such a demon could not gain energy and Maxwell's demon does not break the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics is a fairly common theme in xkcd, last being mentioned in [[2848: Breaker Box]].

This demon behaves very differently from mythological {{w|demons}}, which exist in the afterlife (usually some form of {{w|hell}}) and punish evil humans after death by causing them great suffering (for example, by boiling them in oil or casting them into flame pits). [[Randall]] jokes that if Maxwell's demon were to encounter more stereotypical mythological ones, he would probably not fit in very well because of his very different approach, proposing treating humans like the particles of the thought experiment. While a few physics-savvy humans might feel offended by such treatment, real suffering could be caused by the anxiety of knowing that, once you choose to cross the door, you are not allowed to return ''for all eternity''.

The scientist Maxwell challenged traditional notions about physical phenomena by providing modern statistical explanations of "large-scale effects" such as temperature changes and modern infinitesimal explanations of "distant effects" such as electromagnetic forces. In a similar vein, Maxwell's demon in the comic challenges the mythological demons' traditional notion of torture by proposing modern psychological torture.

The title text continues the joke by suggesting that while Maxwell's demon's idea for torturing the souls of the damned might seem whimsical to the other demons, it could still be used to heat the flame pits better. The other demons' appreciation of this technical improvement mirrors real-life situations where kids that "have trouble fitting in with the others" due to their unusual ideas for games and atypical interests (e.g., in thermodynamics) occasionally earn some appreciation when their cleverness is found to be useful.

This comic was published on 1 November, 2024, the day after Halloween, around the time when many contemporary comic strips have demonic, supernatural or other spooky themes, as well as 4 days before the anniversary of Maxwell's passing (5th of November).

==Transcript==
:[Three demons, Cueball-like in general appearance but with horns and pointed tails, are standing together while surrounded by flames. The leftmost demon is holding a pitchfork and the next one has his hands down. They are looking at the third to the right standing a bit apart from them. This last demon, Maxwell's demon as given in the caption, holds his palms up while looking at the other two.]
:Demon with pitchfork: What's our plan for the souls today? Boil them in oil?
:Middle demon: We could cast them into the flame pit.
:Maxwell's demon: What if we set up two rooms with a door in between, but– get this– '''''we only let them go through it one way!'''''

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Maxwell's Demon had trouble fitting in with the others.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Demons]]

Talk:425: Fortune Cookies

2020-12-22T15:08:44Z

172.68.245.185:

Title-text + "...at the cinema", "...under the boardwalk", "...on the kitchen table", "...in prison"? It's not necessary to append "...in bed" to make sense. And (if that's what was meant, and sorry for not understanding) "...''except'' in bed" also works as nicely as the in-bed version (but sort of hints that ''all'' of the aforementioned may be valid, in leiu). I see the joke there being the lack of vagueness in the title-text's 'cookie' text (save for the matter of the locale, if left unadorned). [[Special:Contributions/178.107.249.215|178.107.249.215]] 21:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the joke in the title text is that no ordinary fortune cookie would contain such a fortune. It's almost always something philosophical, never sexual.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.74|173.245.56.74]] 19:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

''In Bed'' must belong to a classical joke, doesn't it? I'm not native English but I'm pretty sure there must be some more. The incolplete tag is back so far.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, appending 'in bed' is a pretty common joke here in the US. It might not make much sense to those of who have English as a second language.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.74|173.245.56.74]] 15:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I expected this instead of what was actually written, I automatically added except in bed into the title text, which I think makes for a better joke. [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 18:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Help, I'm trapped in a fortune cookie factory in bed! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.185|172.68.245.185]] 15:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)