moron

[hypo]

> if the prof can't check my work, that's his problem.

that's not even close to the problem. the problem is that what you have written
is _wrong_. do you understand the meaning of the word "wrong"? and do you really
think anybody has a problem with understanding what you did? that's ridiculous.

excuse me, but every idiot with half a brain can solve such a trivial system of
linear equations. apparently some people aren't able to express the way to the
solution with a correct formalism.

and no, we don't want to see more of your banalities, show us some involved
differential equation if you want to impress us.

[tantric4hrs]

what is see here is this:  even though i get the right answers, since i don't follow your method, i'm an idiot. i figured out how to do this myself without any chem classes. it works. i'm asking you to give me a problem. that's not so hard. and ITS NOT WRONG IF I GET THE RIGHT ANSWERS. if i'd just written down the answers on the test without showing how i did it, no points off. i could have done this, it didn't occur to me to try.

correct formalism has been VERY wrong several times in the past. it is a barrier to creativity. it just might be that my way is a better way of teaching how to solve these reactions - the other students i taught it to LOVED it. much easier, half the time, always right answers.

i do find it hard to believe that here of all places i'm being told to shut up and follow the rules and do what i'm told. yikes

RHODIUM: you say this will not work with more complex equations. please give me one to try with. thank you.


oh, and i speak perl, java, spanish, chinese and japanese - assembler? what decade are you from?

[tantric4hrs]

Yes we all understand what you are saying.

But lets just say i gave you this...
C306 + H8O4

doesn't work that way. you start with the real chems, then factor in. do the mol math, then factor out. if you gave me a c3o6+h8o4 problem i'd tell you you're nuts, obviously. the factor in is internal - part of doing the math. you MUST factor out at the end.

and, btw, when i'm working this stuff out i write H8O4 not H₈O₄ to make it clear these are not real chems

[methyl_ethyl]

and, btw, when i'm working this stuff out i write H8O4 not H₈O₄ to make it clear these are not real chems

That is quite funny, I think weather or not you choose  to use subscript, has little to do with the "reality" of your "chems" existance.  I think anyone that has eighth grade introductory chemistry would realize that H8O4 is not possible weather it be subscripted or not.

I am not knocking your calculation, if you feel that it works for you, you realize that what you are doing is not correct theoretically, and if you are able to make this work in any and every situation then that is great.  I have known many people that have succesfully taken round about ways of learning concepts.  But usually this process is very specific to the individual, although you are probably excited about your achievements in academia, the best bet is to keep it to yourself.  You will only be frustrated and have to endure a rash of flaming if you think you will be able to convey your exact thought process on people who do not look at the situation from your individual perspective.

regards,

methyl_ethyl

[lugh]

You're going to have a very hard time attempting to convince any chemists of the advantages of discarding molecular formulas    This convention was adopted centuries ago, and has been accepted by all chemists since then because it works    If you want to learn about the characters who are responsible for the nomenclature and other conventions, try reading:

http://www.3rd1000.com/history/atoms.htm

http://www.3rd1000.com/history/molecule.htm

Your method isn't at all novel, all chemical engineers learn the proper version; but you're leaving out the first step, when you multiply the number of molecules times the number of each atom in the molecular formula    Thus your wasting your time tilting at windmills; a subject of an old story by Cervantes  

[hypo]

> what is see here is this:  even though i get the right answers, since i don't
> follow your method, i'm an idiot.

wrong. first of all learn the difference between a method and a formalism.
there's a perfect formalism for what you are doing and it can even do much
more: it's called simple mathematics. try to use it.

and you haven't invented a new method! you just write it down in a non-standard
way. dude, i can come up with thousands of ways to write the same train of thoughts
down (and probably way more than you, since i've learnt information theory), but
what's so interesting about that anyway? your formalism doesn't do anything
what another one couldn't do better and it's confusingly similar to a very widely
used one. that makes it a very bad formalism, nothing to be proud of.

if it helps your thinking, use it on your cheat sheet, but don't try to force it
down other people's throat.

> i figured out how to do this myself without any chem classes.

bingo. every caveman could do simple problems like this one if you'd bother
to explain it to him. you're taking chemistry classes to learn something much
more complicated and interesting: to bundle your thoughts into a generally accepted
language.

> i do find it hard to believe that here of all places i'm being told to shut up
> and follow the rules and do what i'm told.

you're being ridiculous again - do you really think anybody cares how you do your
silly little calculations? really? well, you're wrong. do it with egyptian figures
if you wish. you asked us why you didn't get all points - you got the answer.
your problem if you don't like the answer.

> assembler? what decade are you from?

it's a joke, you're not supposed to understand it.

[tantric4hrs]

[methyl_ethyl]

mwethyk_ethyl: 8th grade?, 

methyl_ethyl: 8th grade? weather->whether think you just might need to repead that grade - j/k

You have brought me to the point where I will accept the negative karma that will be imposed on me by replying to this useless thread.  First off, mother fucker I was trying to take some heat of you by taking your side.  Then you have the _balls to attack me on my grammar, which I accept wholeheartedly, however if you choose to attack me personally please remember to A: spell my name correctly, and B: if you are attacking me grammatically make sure you address all mispelled words.  You missed a few yourself oh dearest teacher, not to mention fucking your own grammar all to hell!  We won't even get into the topic of nomenclature, i.e. H₈O₄, you "gots" "lots" of room for criticism, perhaps I will put more thought into how I construct my sentences gramatically if you would put more thought into constructing posts that involve molecules that actually exist, at least weather is a fucking word, fuck head....

Go in peace to love and serve the lord,

Bitch...

Or more correctly, (wether) look that up, dick head...

warm_regards,

methyl_ethyl

[paranoid]

Oh dear    

Ah well, no matter.  Sounds to me like he's doing grade ten chemistry anyways, and therefore not of legal age to post here.

In other words tantric4hrs, perhaps you should visit the hive again once you've memorised a bit of your period table (says the quintessential couch potato).

Hey, I took chem once upon a time too.  I still make use of it.  But mine has little to do with the nature of this board, and is therefore not something I post about.

Much like you tantric4hrs.

Kapeesh?

[hypo]

> otherwise, fine, i do it my way, it works for me, no problem

sure, go ahead. but i can guarantee you that once you have more experience, you
won't use your "new method" for two reasons: primo you'll have the mental capacity
to interchange 5CO2 and C5O10 in your head and writing down another line will just
slow you down. and secundo writing down things like O10 will give you physical pain.

> Sounds to me like he's doing grade ten chemistry anyways

yeah, i wondered if i should ask which "college" he attends, because the problems
seemed too trivial and his colleagues unusually dense.

ps: congratulations for pissing off methyl_ethyl, arguably one of the nicest persons
here. that's quite the feat.  

[tantric4hrs]

tantric4hrs is mukibear, who told you goobs that lithium would dissolve in ethylenediame like 7 years ago. by reading "metal-ammonia solutions" (which is not entirely in english) do you really think that rhodium's little post was big news? admitted, i was insane then, and i'm not now, but still - i WAS right. the first proposal, using isopropalamine would actually have worked with tert-butanol as a cosolvent. but i did in fact ammend it to recommend EDA. it took y'all three years to actually try this. and it works.

and btw, j/k = just kidding - i thought i edited the post to correct your misspelled name, but apparently it didn't take.

what i'm telling you is this:  tantric4hrs came up with the EDA/birch method. period. ask rhodium. yes, i was nuts then, and i apologize profusely to everyone i offened. but i'm NOT 10th grade chem - AND i have a new modified birch that is 100% OTC. credit where credit is due.