The page stretching has now been fixed.

Compilation of works from Deludedgod

Two small corrections that spell-checker wouldn't catch on a good day.

Fourth paragraph "concept up vitalism" probably supposed to be 'of'

Third from last paragraph(not counting caption) "covalent bonds ten to “open”" probably supposed to be 'tend'.

Testing

8 )

Fucking awesome full review of the applicable parts of my entire high school chemistry class in a single post.

Single best breakdown of the interrelation of thermodynamics and chemical bonds.

I loved the dramatic inclusion of the WHOLE number instead of standard notation. lol.

Just finished my first reading of this, I will need to read it a couple more times before I can see if I have any actual relevant questions.

I started to recall a lot of this from high school chemistry, this is a great reminder!

Here are some things I noticed.  If you could correct them, or me, when you have the time that would be great!:

When you were talking about the second law of thermodynamics, you essentially repeat the same sentence twice:

"There is a critical equation governing this to be described below.

There are critical equations governing this to be described below."

I guess you thought of one critical equation and then recalled others!

You said: "Thus, the law can be restated closed systems tend to progress from states of low probability to high probability."

and then: "Specifically, heat, being random hubbub of molecular motion, is the most singularly chaotic and disordered form of energy"

I took this to mean that heat was a highly probable form of energy, but then you said:

"But that equation is normally used for chemical reactions which change the entropy of a system because they change the energy distribution, from highly ordered packets of free energy in reactive chemical bonds to vastly more disordered, improbable heat energy released"

Stating that heat was improbable?

"In an example with a box containing one thousand coins all facing heads, the initials state (all coins facing heads) probability is 1."

I think you have an extra 's' at the end of 'initial' there.

"Many chemical reactions are wholly reversible. If A can become B, there is no reason that B can become A,"

Do you mean 'there is no reason that B CANNOT become A,'  ?

"Consider this reaction, for example:

Cu + O2 => CuO"

Should this be:  2Cu + o2 => 2CuO  ?

On a side note..... is the universe definitely a closed system?

Thanks again, I hope to have better questions once I've read it through a few more times.

Unfortunately, a lot of what you write goes over my head, so I'd usually be pretty useless at that! 

It's quite a coincidence though, I was on youtube watching videos about mitosis literally the day before you started posting this series of lectures.  I thought to myself "I'd like to understand this better" and now you've put in all this work on exactly what I wanted to read about, and more.  I am glad to be able to help out at all.

I've read this lecture again up until where you start talking about thermodynamics.  I've been reading for a while, and I really need to be more alert when going over that bit I think, so I'll postpone the rest until the weekend!  Anyway, here are some things I spotted or wanted to know more about:

figure 1.8 seems to be broken

"Returning to bonding, we saw that ionic compounds, due to electrostatic forces, form large lattices, such as salt crystals (Sodium Chloride is table salt). Covalent bonds can also form large lattices due to the fact that they can form multiple binding sites. Unlike ionic compounds however, all of which form lattices, only certain covalent compounds form lattices, because some covalently-bonded compounds cannot form lattices because the mutual cooperation between several molecules satisfies all parties. If this is the case, and the vast majority of the time, it is, then what forms is a covalent molecules. An example is carbon dioxide, or water, there are endless examples. For covalent structures to form giant lattices entail they can be expanded."

I've read this paragraph over and over again, and can't quite seem to understand it.  Is this still correct after I have reworded it:

"Returning to bonding, we saw that ionic compounds, due to electrostatic forces, form large lattices, such as salt crystals (Sodicum Chloride is table salt).  Covalent bonds can also form large lattices due to the fact that they can form multiple binding sites.  Unlike ionic compounds however, all of which form lattices, only certain covalent compounds form lattices.  This is due to the fact that some covalently-bonded compounds cannot form lattices because the mutual cooperation (sharing of electrons) satisfies all parties.  When this is the case, and in the vast majority cases, it is, then what forms are covelent molecules.  Some examples are carbon dioxide, or water.  There are endless examples.  For covalent structures to form giant lattices they must be expandable."

"As is the absolutely most fundamental process of biology, in addition to small molecules and lattices, covalent bonds can also create large macromolecules, and this will be examined soon."

Should this be 'As THIS is...' ?

"A molecule by definition is held together by covalent bonds."

Should this be "A covalent molecule by definition is held together by covalent bonds." ?  Or are ionic compounds not considered to be molecules, like the NaCl example from earlier?  Is there a difference between a compound and a molecule?

Thanks

Hi there,

 Managed to finish reading this again.  This is all very interesting stuff!

The only things I could find were a couple typos, and one thing that I think I have just misunderstood:

You said: "I said before that things hve the natural propensity to attempt to fill their outer valence, however, this vague incoherency is not satisfactory."

Should be "...things hAve the natural..."

you said: "Entropy therefore is a measure of the probability associated with a system, and an increase in entropy in invariably a tend towards more probable states"

should be "..in entropy IS invariably..."

you said: "since thisd entails an increased number of protons"

should be "since this entails..."

you said "And so for positive ions, the ionic radius decreases across the group. On the other hand, the precisely opposing trend will occur for the negative ions, those in groups 5, 6, and 7"

and then "However, from group 5 to 6 to 7, the ionic radius will decrease"

So it seems that the same trend rather than the opposite holds true?  Or were you referring to the loss of electrons vs the gaining of electrons?

Cheers

Nevermind, found it in the General Conversation forum!

DG, I was wondering if you were still working on this series of lectures/articles?  I know some of the later ones are still up on your author's section, but I was definitely going to need to refer back to the earlier ones to have any hope of following them.

Apologies if you have reposted them somewhere and I just missed it or something, and thanks again as I know this has taken/will take a lot of work.