Talk:3040: Chemical Formulas - Revision history

172.69.130.57 at 01:12, 24 January 2025

2025-01-24T01:12:29Z

172.70.90.112 at 10:15, 23 January 2025

2025-01-23T10:15:55Z

141.101.96.9 at 21:58, 22 January 2025

2025-01-22T21:58:55Z

141.101.96.8 at 21:55, 22 January 2025

2025-01-22T21:55:13Z

172.69.194.19 at 18:51, 22 January 2025

2025-01-22T18:51:06Z

172.68.245.185 at 17:15, 22 January 2025

2025-01-22T17:15:33Z

172.70.134.148 at 17:12, 22 January 2025

2025-01-22T17:12:33Z

162.158.79.40 at 17:12, 22 January 2025

2025-01-22T17:12:15Z

172.70.163.11 at 16:54, 22 January 2025

2025-01-22T16:54:15Z

162.158.103.187 at 15:57, 22 January 2025

2025-01-22T15:57:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:12, 24 January 2025
Line 55:		Line 55:
	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)		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)
	:It's also an onomatopoeia, being the sound you get if you spill it on... pretty much anything. (If you can blot out your own accompanying screams.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.19\|172.69.194.19]] 18:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)		:It's also an onomatopoeia, being the sound you get if you spill it on... pretty much anything. (If you can blot out your own accompanying screams.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.19\|172.69.194.19]] 18:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	At my middle-school, a first-year allegedly asked the teacher if they could have some more "im coo soh" for a lab class. It turns out they meant 1 Molar Copper Sulfate (1M CuSO4). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.130.57\|172.69.130.57]] 01:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 :::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)

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 :::::::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)
-::::::As an organic chemist, this is called a "Texas carbon" (five bonds to carbon), and it's actually WAY more annoying than any possible mispronunciations. I suspect this is a meta-joke.
+:: As an organic chemist, this is called a "Texas carbon" (five bonds to carbon). It's a common mistake, especially from non-chemists, and it's actually WAY more annoying than any possible mispronunciations. I suspect this is a meta-joke: the ACTUAL way to annoy a chemist isn't to call it 'nackle', it's to draw a five-bond carbon. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.9|141.101.96.9]] 21:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
 Similar to 2492 [[User:Chakra|Chakra]] ([[User talk:Chakra|talk]]) 03:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 :::::::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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:51, 22 January 2025
Line 52:		Line 52:

	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)		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)
		+	:It's also an onomatopoeia, being the sound you get if you spill it on... pretty much anything. (If you can blot out your own accompanying screams.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.19\|172.69.194.19]] 18:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:15, 22 January 2025
Line 51:		Line 51:
	: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 Cr<sub>2</sub>(CH<sub>3</sub>CO<sub>2</sub>)<sub>4</sub>(H<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>2</sub> 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)		: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 Cr<sub>2</sub>(CH<sub>3</sub>CO<sub>2</sub>)<sub>4</sub>(H<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>2</sub> 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. FOOF comes to mind. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.40\|162.158.79.40]] 17:12, 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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:12, 22 January 2025
Line 51:		Line 51:
	: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 Cr<sub>2</sub>(CH<sub>3</sub>CO<sub>2</sub>)<sub>4</sub>(H<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>2</sub> 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)		: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 Cr<sub>2</sub>(CH<sub>3</sub>CO<sub>2</sub>)<sub>4</sub>(H<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>2</sub> 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. FOOF comes to ~~mine~~. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.40\|162.158.79.40]] 17:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)	+	There are certainly some chemical formulas that get pronounced this way. FOOF comes to mind. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.40\|162.158.79.40]] 17:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:12, 22 January 2025
Line 50:		Line 50:
	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)		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 Cr<sub>2</sub>(CH<sub>3</sub>CO<sub>2</sub>)<sub>4</sub>(H<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>2</sub> 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)		: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 Cr<sub>2</sub>(CH<sub>3</sub>CO<sub>2</sub>)<sub>4</sub>(H<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>2</sub> 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. FOOF comes to mine. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.40\|162.158.79.40]] 17:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 22 January 2025
Line 49:		Line 49:

	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)		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 Cr<sub>2</sub>(CH<sub>3</sub>CO<sub>2</sub>)<sub>4</sub>(H<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>2</sub> 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)

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ::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)
+: 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)