| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | :"I" would have two in Randall's system as a sans-serif element, and four as a serif element. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.202|108.162.249.202]] 00:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::The crossbar on "I" is actually not a serif, it's a part of the letter. Some popular sans-serif fonts that have a crossbar on "I" include Tahoma and Verdana. --[[User:Zagorath|Zagorath]] ([[User talk:Zagorath|talk]]) 13:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| | What is the force that holds the two or three glyphs of an atom together called? How many bonds does the i's dot in Ti have? Ann how dangerous is comic sans cheMStry? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.39|141.101.104.39]] 06:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | | What is the force that holds the two or three glyphs of an atom together called? How many bonds does the i's dot in Ti have? Ann how dangerous is comic sans cheMStry? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.39|141.101.104.39]] 06:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC) |
| − | :Probably not as dangerous as if you were using Aurebesh (look it up).--[[User:KitsunePhoenix|Amaroq (KitsunePhoenix)]] ([[User talk:KitsunePhoenix|talk]]) 03:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
| |
| | :The letter i can only form one bond, as the other side is bonded with its dot. This is pretty basic chemestry![[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 08:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | | :The letter i can only form one bond, as the other side is bonded with its dot. This is pretty basic chemestry![[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 08:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| | ::Ok. Let's look at something advanced. Fe. Os. {{w|Ununtrium|Uut}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | | ::Ok. Let's look at something advanced. Fe. Os. {{w|Ununtrium|Uut}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC) |
| − | :::Sorry, but you mean {{w|Nh|Nh}}.
| |
| − | :::Ah, binary atoms. Probably too advanced for this discussion. [[User:Redbelly98|Redbelly98]] ([[User talk:Redbelly98|talk]]) 13:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| | Presumably hydrocarbon chains are still supported, albeit with hydrogens forming the backbone in a zip-like arrangement. You'd need phosphorous on the end, with a sans serif valence of 1. [[User:SleekWeasel|SleekWeasel]] ([[User talk:SleekWeasel|talk]]) 08:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | | Presumably hydrocarbon chains are still supported, albeit with hydrogens forming the backbone in a zip-like arrangement. You'd need phosphorous on the end, with a sans serif valence of 1. [[User:SleekWeasel|SleekWeasel]] ([[User talk:SleekWeasel|talk]]) 08:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC) |
| Line 32: |
Line 25: |
| | | | |
| | 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)
| |
| | | | |
| | 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) |
| | | | |
| | Oxygen has 6 valence electrons, not two. It forms two bonds because it's got room for two more. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.105|108.162.216.105]] 16:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | | Oxygen has 6 valence electrons, not two. It forms two bonds because it's got room for two more. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.105|108.162.216.105]] 16:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC) |
| − | :In a typographic chemistry system, assuming that molecules can still be 3-dimensional, Oxygen atoms could hypothetically find themselves strung along other atoms whose vertices poke through the O's (like a ring on a pole). If you were to throw quantum tunneling into the mix as well (probably represented by Stencil lettering), then you could have atoms passing through eachother, thus resulting in Oxygen forming into proper chain-links. --[[User:KitsunePhoenix|Amaroq (KitsunePhoenix)]] ([[User talk:KitsunePhoenix|talk]]) 03:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Could Mydrane be My Dr -ane where -ane is the common ending for an alkane. My Dr = CCH...which could be Cape Code Healthcare? ~~rbnm
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I wonder how many bonds the capital letter "I" would have-- two or four? Seeing as how Randall writes it in this comic, I'm guessing two. Also, would it be possible for carbon to bond with itself ad infinitum in a chain which looks like the teeth on a zipper ("C", upside-down "C", and so on)? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.177|108.162.238.177]] 00:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Yes, Carbon can form very long chains, and also carbon rings (but only with an even number of carbon atoms).[[User:DivePeak|DivePeak]] ([[User talk:DivePeak|talk]]) 04:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::Assuming that you're talking Comic Universe, I don't see why it ''can't'' be an odd number of carbons in a ring. Even if we're forced to bend round a ...∩U∩U... sort of thing (only end-connected, between characters, not end-snuggled, IYSWIM) you can have one that bends round outside of the plane of the page similar to a mobius strip and could still 'zipper' in a closed circuit with an odd number.
| |
| − | :::IRL, of course, there's {{w|Cyclopentane}} and {{w|Cyclopropane}} (3- and 5-carbon rings), among others, and {{w|Cycloundecane}} (11-carbon saturated ring, with an irregular and aperiodic "wiggle" around the circuit) shows one way that the Fictional Cyclocarbon could (just with a greater angle of bond between successive carbons, and no hydrogens involved) work with odd numbers. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.112|141.101.99.112]] 07:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::My bad - I thought the comic universe was only two dimensional and it would have to be an even number. I need to upgrade my screen! [[User:DivePeak|DivePeak]] ([[User talk:DivePeak|talk]]) 02:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Me is not the designation of two carbon chains. Methane is CH4. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.147|108.162.221.147]]rbnm
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Any idea why the title text says "usually" more reactive? Do we have examples of where serifs could be less reactive than their sans serif counterparts?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.90|108.162.229.90]] 11:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Usually: For example, serif oxygen and sans-serif oxygen are both inert.[[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.126|199.27.133.126]] 23:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Now if someone comes up with a species with the formula C<sub>2</sub>H, we know what to call it. Maybe the ion C<sup>-</sup>≡CH? [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]])
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I was never good at chemistry so this is probably a dumb question, but would it be possible to rename the elements to actually work with this convention? Obviously ignoring the fact that some elements may form too many bonds for any letters we have. [[User:Mikeb108|Mikeb108]] ([[User talk:Mikeb108|talk]]) 00:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Given the 26-letter alphabet, single-characted symbols could cover just 26 elements, possibly the following assignments...
| |
| − | :Valency 0: B,D,O
| |
| − | :Valency 1:P,Q
| |
| − | :Valency 2: A,C,G,I?,J?,L,M,N,R,S,U,V,W,Z
| |
| − | :Valency 3: E,F,J?,T,Y
| |
| − | :Valency 4: H,I?,K,X
| |
| − | :...question marks indicate characters in there twice, because of particular alternate font styles give very different results.
| |
| − | :Maybe something like the sharp points of the A, V, M, etc could be a bond-site. Or the bulges of B, R, etc, mean something.
| |
| − | :If digraph symbols are allowed (Uppercase+lowercase, to avoid confusion with compounds, no using of l (el) in that form if it looks too much like the initial I (ai)...), as currently, then maybe more coverage. Xo is another 4, as is Qh. While Oo is maybe another monatomic element?
| |
| − | :Going into punctuation, # (octothorn!) is actually overkill except perhaps to allow something like xenon octofluoride (I know it can do hexafluoride, but I think that's just tetrafluoride with extra fluorines in the two -Xe-F-F- loops - I really must check), but & would be an interesting two-bondsite (plus two of those lobes, if that works for ionic rather than covalent).
| |
| − | :The main problem is polyvalent elements, especially in the metals, like ferric (Fe<sup>3+</sup>) vs ferrous (Fe<sup>2+</sup>) vs ferrate (possibly Fe<sup>6+</sup>, but my knowledge of iron chemistry is... *ahem*... rusty!). What character(s) do we assign to those? Multiple optional diacritics, as required to achieve the desired modification?
| |
| − | :...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)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The hydrogen crystal in SMILES: <code>[H]1[H][H]23[H][H]4([H])[H][H]56[H]24[H]78[H]13[H][H]7([H])[H][H]58[H][H]6</code>. Unfortunately, some SMILES parsers can't handle overbonding. [[User:ClassicalGames|ClassicalGames]] ([[User talk:ClassicalGames|talk]]) 13:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Carbon:<code>[C]=[C]</code>.
| |
| − | :The carbon compound is <code>[C]=[H]=[C]</code> and the oxygen is <code>[O].[O]</code>. See [[User:ChemistryGuide/SMILES|this page]] for the guide.
| |
| − | ::Don't remove the brackets, or it will not work. [[User:ChemistryGuide|ChemistryGuide]] ([[User talk:ChemistryGuide|talk]]) 07:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
| |
