hermanntrude

your derivation has the assumption of a photon moving at a speed other than that of the speed of light.

OK I just checked and the chemputer is back up and running. It doesnt do fragmentation patterns but it DOES do isotopic patterns here's the result for oxalic acid. Better late than never: mass % 90 100.0 __________________________________________________ 91 2.3 _ 92 0.8 93 0.0

as neonblack said, there isn't really a derivation which is perfect anyway, so perhaps the simplest is best

Ive actually researched this a bit more in the last few days and it seems that the maximum bond order so far discovered is sextuple. Apparently there is evidence that there cannot be any higher bond orders, although i don't know what evidence is. In a sextuple bond, one is sigma, two are pi and three are delta. Phi bonds seem like a perfectly reasonable idea to me but i guess if you get enough electrons inbetween the nuclei eventually the situation will become unstable

a candle or any other flame should work too

i suspect your density is wonky. A powder isn't the same volume as a solid. Also your powder might not be entirely dry or free of oxides and other contaminants

it's amazing that something as basic as an element can make something as complex and fascinating like these crystals

m is the mass of the particle and c is the speed of light. A speed multiplied by a mass is a momentum. It is true that there is a flaw in the reasoning but it gives the correct result, and in a very simple manner. It's how my students are expected to learn the derivation.

with violently toxic impurities, it's not quantity which matters

it's flawed, but yet it's the one which is shown in most textbooks. I was attempting to keep the answer simple.

You'd need a bunsen, two small metal pans (i used measuring cups), a pair of heat-proof gloves for safety, and a pound or so of bismuth. The bunsen and the pans i'll have to leave up to you. The gloves you could probably get away with using oven-mitts, although you'd be better off with purpose built safety gloves. The bismuth can be purchased online, but I'm not sure if you have to be registered as some kind of institution to be able to get it. I don't think so because I originally found it on amazon.com. Once you have all the apparatus, set up one pan (clean... everything must be very clean or it won't work) above a bunsen burner. Use a tripod or a clamp and retort stand. Get a heat-proof surface ready and put your other pan (clean and also empty) on the surface. Light your bunsen and set it on a blue flame so it's as hot as possible. It will take about 5 or ten minutes to melt the bismuth. Once it's melted, turn off the bunsen and wait about 3 to 5 minutes. The bismuth will form a dirty grey skin on the surface. Pick up the pan containing the molten bismuth VERY carefully with your heat-proof glove and pour it immediately into the empty pan. Allow everything to completely cool and then give the original pan a sharp tap, face-down on a surface. The crystals will fall out. Alternatively you can buy these crystals fairly cheaply online.

this experiment is cheap, fairly safe and awesomely rewarding. Interestingly, my original sample of bismuth (which had been entirely cooled in its container and not crystallised in the fashion above) appeared to be paramagnetic. The new crystals are diamagnetic.

If you don't know the de broglie relationship you can derive it like this: E=mc^2 E=hv first, equate the two right hand sides. second, divide by c to leave mc on one side. third, replace mc with p, which is momentum.

it's easier to buy n2o than make it. I bought some around the corner from here in small cylinders. They use it for whipping cream. They cartridges contain about 10g of n2o at very high pressure. the top of the cylinder is covered with a soft metal plug which can be peirced with a camping stove valve. The only slight dangers are: 1) nitrous oxide narcosis. nitrous oxide can cause people to get a bit hysterious. It may be that this is WHY you want to make it. In which case i'd strongly advise you either don't do it or you buy it to minimise the risk of inhaling other nitrogen oxides, some of which can kill. 2) the cylinder might fly around the room under jet propulsion. Clamp it down. 3) the cylinder gets very very cold as it discharges. This can cause frostbite. Clamp the cylinder and wear a insulated glove just in case you need to hold it.

ROFL love it!

flame test?

I'd strongly reccomend that this type of question be answered using an ICE table. It IS possible without but it's much clearer in a table format

I crystallised my bismuth! it's so rediculously easy to do. I don't know why people dont have bismuth crystallising parties every week. It's awesome fun to do. The only slight difficulty is that it's very hard to take a photo which does justice to the colours. I'm very proud of my bismuth crystals. I plan to make more. Here's the few photos which did work out:

i feel an ICE table coming on

I think your problem stems from your interpretation of the diagram in the other thread (apologies for cross-threading). You saw the diagram as a group of molecules joined to each other (you mentioned ammonia and CH and CH2). The trouble is that the diagram represents one single molecule, not a series of separate molecules joined together. So that's why it contains things like CH and CH2 which aren't stable on their own. As part of a larger molecule they can be very stable indeed.

the lines in the diagram each represent two shared electrons in a covalent bond. If you look at the CH2 unit, for instance, you'll see there is one pair of electrons for each bond. there are two bonds between the carbon and hydrogens (not shown as lines) and two between the carbon and its neighbouring carbons. Notice that two of the carbons arent shown at all. This is quite common in diagrams of organic molecules. You can tell where the carbons ae because they're at the corners and ends of lines. Anyway to explain it in terms of the octet rule, the carbon in the CH2 unit has four bonds, each of which is a pair of electrons, making a complete octet (8 electrons in the second shell)

thinking about it as something other than "crap" will probably help. Attitude is a big part of learning. Any specifics, ask them here... we have a bunch of experts, but don't expect immediate responses. give it a few days.

What do you guys know about delta, phi and gamma bonds? do any of them actually exist? Are there different types of each variety? for instance, if an f-orbital bonds with another, you could get a different type of bond depending on the values of ml. I guess the orbital with ml=0 (fz^3) is unlikely to make a bond since it's quite small around the middle, but the ml=-3 and ml=-1 varieties seem like they could make them... the ml=-2 looks like it might make something similar to a delta bond... I can simulate all of these on my new orbital viewer software but iwonder if i am simulating anything real or not... here's an example of a phi bond between two 4f orbitals with ml=-3: image isnt showing for some reason

hi There is more than one type of ferrofluid, but the most common one is kerosene-based and yes it does stain pretty much everything. However, I made some last year and kept it in glass bottles with very little trouble. It did kind of stain the glass but not in a terrible manner, you could still see through it. Mine was very good ferrofluid, though I have to admit. It flocculated pretty fast, and I never got any spikes, even with neodymium magnets. If you have access to the materials, the water-based one would be less stain-y... A very useful tool for demonstrating your ferrofluid is a small dish made of aluminum foil. They're usually used for weighing things in. they're disposable but also thin enough for the magnetic field to be as strong as possible.

what makes you think that these bonds aren't covalent?