Remember me /sci/? I said that I did some undergraduate research

>>8104640
>an ideal gas behaves ideally
NO SHIT

>>8104640
You know why no one read it? Because setting a scientific paper in Word is a gigantic blaring alarm that you're full of shit.

99.9% of people who aren't crackpots in 2016 uses TeX.

In short it's an equation of state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state

It can predict a range of gas characteristics such as:

Critical temperature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_point_(thermodynamics)

and Boyle temperature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle_temperature

from only one experimental value (the intermolecular potential energy well depth). In comparison all other equations of state such as the Van der Waals Equation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_equation
need at least three variables and are still less accurate. I don't really know why my equation works though and no-one has ever offered to analyze it.

>>8104653
Nigga I was 18
But yeah I hear you it doesn't look professional

File: another page.png (59KB, 653x917px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 653x917px

Here are the Boyle temperature predictions. When we used the textbook virial equation of state to predict this in clas, for some it was 300 K out. Mine is within 20 K.

>>8104640
>derivations appear to be total bullshit yet oddly it gets the right answers
I believe that's called overfitting

File: claims.png (50KB, 646x916px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 646x916px

And here's the first page

C'mon /sci/ you're always so eager to shoot down the claims of amateurs. Well I am begging you now please shoot this down. I need to know, it's been bugging me for so long. Here's my bold claim to have discovered the worlds most accurate gas model, fire away.

>>8104736
What do you mean? Do you mean I fitted data to curves? I didn't do that. The van der Waals Equation however is a curve fitted to data and still somehow it's less accurate than mine. It's weird.

File: unironically being this guy.jpg (128KB, 600x666px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 600x666px

>>8104653

File: 1464372707195.webm (779KB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 720x404px

>>8104640
what program do you use to write your shit?

>>8104760
Microsoft Word.

Where are all the chemists?

>>8104738
What's your claim, in plain language?

>>8104794
I created an equation that can predict all the properties of real gases from first principles. All other models of real gases are just curve fits.

>>8105081
Then what the fuck are you on /sci/, go collect nobel prizes, faggot.

Oh wait, no. The reason you are not collecting nobel prizes and instead on /sci/ is because you got jack shit.

Anything you say I will disregard because if you were talking truth then you would be the new Barnett and we would be making threads about you.

Back to /b/.

>>8104640
Could you post the whole thing so I can go through it? I'm not great at physical chemistry but I love molecular modeling and this seems interesting.

> I've just always wanted to know if it was bullshit or if there was something to it.

It's possible that spending so much time on 4chan has degraded your mind to the point that professors are so put off by your insistence on putting 'bullshit' in every sentence that they didn't give you a fair shake, but the more-likely possibility is that an undergraduate didn't actually come up with the most significant result in physical chemistry in a fit of disillusionment.

>>8105101
Why are so mad?
>>8105110
K ill have to log into my pc
>>8105113
Well thats what this thread is for, to see if I did or not. Im happy for you to debunk my claim.

>>8105126
Thanks man, I may not be able to go through it all for a little bit but I think I can puzzle together what you are attempting if I have the whole thing instead of just pieces.

>>8105126
Your claim is the equivalent of the perpetual motion machines that various anons were having paranoid delusions about 2 years ago. Since then they've moved on to flat earth 'satire', and yet you're still doing this.

Any professor at any university would jump at the chance to study any remotely-looking research that an undergraduate might have done.

>>8105163
>any remotely-looking research
Looking what?

>>8105128
Here it is. Honestly, I cringe reading it too 7 years later but it gets the right answer so I dunno what to make of it.

https://www.docdroid.net/ygLo4Gu/equation-of-state.pdf.html

This thread but excites me and confuses me. I absolutely hate physical chemistry so I can't poke any hole in OPs post but neither has anyone else. Hope it stays alive long enough to get some answers.

Honestly OP post it on Reddit, the problem with /sci/ is this board is too diversified while a specialized Reddit chemistry board would be more probable to find an answer.

>>8105385
>I can't poke any hole in OPs post but neither has anyone else

I'm surprised too. I just woke up and logged in to my PC expecting 10 angry replies as to why it's utter bullshit and I should kill myself as happens with all the other amateur ideas I've ever posted on here but nope, not a single word against it. Maybe I have discovered something?

Yeah I think I'm going to have to ask Reddit or StackExchange because nobody here can give me an answer.

>>8105189

I'm giving it a look. I'm not an expert in physical chemistry, but i'm a physic student. That's good, it makes sense. basically yuo've linked the LJ potential to the equation of gas' state. I can't find any hole. You definitely should send it to a professor

>>8105821
I am nowhere close to a scientist (I lurk /sci/ for the math) but what I gather from reading your stuff is that you're basically using the Lennard-Jones potential to (completely) explain all deviation from ideal gas behaviour.

I.e. you start from the assumption that Z - 1 = (sigma/r)^12 - (sigma/r)^6 up to a proportionality constant (and everything else is just algebra)

Which, from the POV of an outsider like myself, is pretty neat, but I find it hard to believe that applying L-J to the ideal gas law is an original insight that no chemist has ever thought of. (Googling "lennard-jones ideal gas" yields >80k results.) I can't imagine your professors getting excited over such a thing, in all honesty.

Your proportionality makes zero fucking sense.
You are essentially claiming your formula is proportional to one. Well color me fucking surprised, I'll solve all my math that way, solution is always proportional to 1, one way or the other. You aren't claiming any linear or inverse or any other standard proportionality, you are claiming there's a function mapping expression on the left to the expression on the right, which is true, but completely meaningless.

>>8105834
Yes that's what I did. I'm not in university anymore, I quit after a year remember? Is there any UK chemistry or physics student here who could give me an audience with their professor?
>>8105841
the L-J potential is already used to calculate the coefficients of the virial equation of state but that is a) totally different, an infinite series with correspondingly infinite coefficients b) it cannot calculate Boyle and critical temperature on it's own, only in combination with the van der Waals Equation which as I said is basically just a curve fit. Either way my method is more accurate.
>>8105970
I dunno man, it Just Werks™

A quick look at your first page and the van der Waals equation says that your method is identical to the van der Waals method except that you have fixed the relation between the [math]a[/math] and [math]b[/math] parameters by choosing the L-J potential. Given that the L-J potential was built to model the potential described by these parameters in a simplistic fashion, it is unsurprising that this works.

>>8104640
I remember you and I adequately explained the state of the field and the context of your irrelevant ideas to it the first time. Go read the archived thread.

Why is this still bothering you? There's nothing here.
In your first thread you claimed other reasons for quitting and said that you just spent a lot of hours from your summer break on this before dropping.

Now suddenly you fucking "quit" out of some imagined principle that your professors didn't see your genius?

Like most undergrads you went on an intellectual goose chase, most people don't regret it because even a goose chase is still exercise. You will always regret this because you don't have a career in sceince so it was an utter waste of time for you.

Accept it and don't post this shit on /sci/ again.

>>8106173
If you read more than the first page you will see that it has absolutely nothing to do with the van der Waals method. The van Der waals method is adding constants to the ideal gas law to make it fit a real curve. This is a Boltzmann distribution.
>>8106210
>I remember you and I adequately explained the state of the field and the context of your irrelevant ideas to it the first time
You rightly dismissed it because I had nothing to show. Now I found the document which is why I made another thread
>Why is this still bothering you? There's nothing here.
As I said I forgot about it until I found out Microsoft didn't let me delete it. There's clearly something here, it clearly works as you can see in the results tables. I'm asking why.
>Now suddenly you fucking "quit" out of some imagined principle that your professors didn't see your genius?
That was autistic and I already apologized for that

>Like most undergrads you went on an intellectual goose chase
Yes we all do this but this time I somehow came up with something that is better than what's in the textbook. Sounds to me that you're just butthurt that you never came up with anything yourself. If you can post an equation that is already in the literature that can more accurately calculate the Boyle temperature of a gas than mine then do so. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

>>8106210
We get mad at anons who come here claiming to have created an alternate theory of gravity or whatever because they never even post a single line of maths to back it up. OP is different, not only has he provided his mathematical reasoning but he has given a list of predictions from his theory that actually does match with experimental data. I'm sure that is unprecedented in the history of /sci/.

>>8106470
>The van Der waals method is adding constants to the ideal gas law to make it fit a real curve.
You did the same thing using the L-J potential; the two terms of that potential are explicitly meant to contain information on the [math]a[/math] and [math]b[/math] parameters of the van der Waals equation. Your equation hides this explicit dependence behind an assumed relation between these parameters and the use of proportionalities rather than equalities until it reappears as a dependence upon a constant multiplier in your temperature scales. It is possible your result is "new," but I doubt it is revolutionary.

>>8106565
Ok, but 2 questions; If my equation is a curve fit why can it be used to find the critical temperature even if you never take any measurements of the pressure, volume and temperature of the gas? To calculate critical temperature with van der Waals you need to know the constants which you get from fitting the equation to a curve and that curve you got from taking pressure, volume and temperature measurements.

The second question is, if my equation is just a repackaged van der Waals Equation why is it way more accurate?

>>8106614
Hey op, post this on reddit to r/chemistry or r/physics or whatver other subreddit, or even another site, and post the link I'm interested to see what you discovered/ or didn't discover. Post the link here after.

OP's facade of pseudo humility is starting to show some cracks. How delightful. Carry on /sci/.

>>8106664
t. /lit/

>>8106648
https://www.reddit.com/r/chemistry/comments/4lhmth/i_made_an_equation_of_state/
>>8106664
>you make baseless attacks
>i defend myself
>you say i am being arrogant
well played

>>8106614
Deleted original due to fucking up tags.

Anyways, to the first, the L-J potential is a fit to begin with. You can argue the long range behavior from dipole-dipole interactions, but the short range behavior is basically made up to fit the data available. So, while you do not explicitly fit the data, your entire result is based upon something that was and thus your result is not derived form first principles, but curve fitting.

For the second, your method is a slight advancement on the van der Waals model, but in a fairly trivial manner for the reasons stated in the first part: you get better results because you used a better fit than a hard core repulsion and constant attraction when you picked the L-J potential.

>>8106711
You're first answer makes sense but your second I still don't see how it has anything to do with van der Waals. van der Waals doesn't say anything about quantized intermolecular energies. van der Waals can't even compute Boyle temperature on it's own, it has to be combined with the virial equation of state. If my equation was a van der Waals rehash then it would not be able to calculate the Boyle temperature on it's own.

File: 5608051+_81751c2981b1e2adceb6556fc0fef114.png (259KB, 440x395px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 440x395px

post the font/size/margins/settings you use please OP. I really like your shit

>>8106726
lol thanks, I don't even remember, looks like Times New Roman size 12 to me

>>8106724
It can give the Boyle temperature without the virial equation of state. The only time it wouldn't work is when the area of hard core repulsion is on the scale of your system, at which point you have other problems if you are trying to apply statistical mechanics.

>>8106742
No it can't, the derivation uses the virial equation. post a link showing otherwise.

>>8106913
If you use the virial equation, you just get the van der Waals result less higher order corrections; a Taylor expansion in b/V is not some epic failure.

>>8106940
I see that you are correct. Thanks for explaining what it really is and why it works.
>>8106711
>your method is a slight advancement on the van der Waals model
I don't mean to toot my own horn but c'mon, I remember I learned the van der Waals Equation in second term so like March and by summer I'd made an improved version. It's not revolutionary because there are plenty of other modern equations of state out there but I'm proud of myself.

>>8106940
There's one more thing though, what's up with the quantization business? Why did I have to do that to get the answer? I've never read anywhere that intermolecular separations were quantized I just ran with that model because that's what my equation told me. I have never seen any proof that it's actually physically true. intermolecular separations in a gas can take any value right?

>>8107009
Look into "lattice gases" and the connection between the statistical mechanics of the Ising model and fluids. The short answer reason is that stat mech gives no shits about the microscopic physics.

>>8104640
This may show someone did the same thing already:
http://www.sklogwiki.org/SklogWiki/index.php/Lennard-Jones_model

File: 1436071885161.jpg (15KB, 250x196px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 250x196px

can we take a moment to just appreciate how good OP's papers look?

>>8104640
For a good paper you should have researched different gas models and compared all of them in the tables.

>>8107036
hahahahaha it really doesn't

>>8107576
I was gonna but I got lazy

>>8107549
It's just default Word settings.

>>8110051
y u bumping my thread? you want me to answer a question? Shoot.

OP here, Stack Exchange says my equation is original.

>>8107882
Would you bother to do it now?

File: comparison.png (22KB, 1439x811px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 1439x811px

>>8110581
If someone was going to help me publish it then yes, otherwise what is the point in me continuing to work on this if nobody is interested and I'm not even in the field anymore?

Just for you though I've thrown together a quick comparison with the van der Waals Equation. Pic related

So has anyone refuted OP's paper or what?

File: christopher-langan.jpg (28KB, 339x382px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 339x382px

>>8111442
/sci/ has not
Reddit has not
Physics Stack Exchange says I should publish

>>8111622

link to stackexchange thread?

Is OP the next Mochizuki?

>>8111697
I found it: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/51926/is-this-equation-of-state-original

>>8104680
When I was 18, I was practicing my Latex on my optics assignments
No excuse
You can learn it in one day

>>8112746
I do engineering now, I have no reason to ever learn Latex

how did you derive your equations ?

it looks like a taylor series expansion

>>8112763
https://www.docdroid.net/ygLo4Gu/equation-of-state.pdf.html

>>8112726
rofl

>Physics Stack Exchange says I should publish

OP you're such a turd "King Chem"

>>8112826
sorry chem stack exchange and one guy did say that in the comments.

>>8106130

>I dunno man, it Just Werks™
so then you are just fitting your data to a known curve. that proves nothing really. i bet this is the problem that a real professor can actually check and tell you.

>>8106470

fitting a curve exactly is not hard to do with enough parameters. I have no idea how your textbook fitted the curve. but if its not as accurate don't you think its simplified to get nicer formulas and simpler calculations. ( not a chemist)

>>8107549

is this samefagging now lol? nobody on /sci/ likes Microsoft words

>>8112914
>>8112918
I repeat, I challenge you to present an equation in this thread that can predict the Boyle temperature of a gas more accurately than mine.

I'm waiting.

>>8112933

i think its common sense that you can add some extra parameters in your equations to make it even more accurate so that it removes the errors you had. if you are not constrained to anything

>>8112942
The original L-J 12-6 potential that it is derived from is a fudge so you would have to re-derive it with a more accurate potential curve. Can be done I suppose.

>>8112933
Your equation may be luckily more accurate, but your derivation is suspect. You seem to confuse state variables of the whole substance with variables of the individual particles, and leave no room for expectation values. Maybe go through stat mech 101 again?

I don't think you understand why your model isn't useful. It's much more complicated than VDW, and only gives marginally better results.

VDW is not used practically to predict values of these gases, we use much more complicated simulations to do that. Yours and VDW are toy models, which can be played around with to reveal simple behaviours of the gases. Yours reveals no more than the VDW (VDW is simplest model exhibiting a phase transition) yet it is much more complicated to manipulate. If you want to make accurate predictions, you'd use a much more complicated model than yours. If you want to play around with a state function, you'd use a simpler model than yours.

Your equation straddles the middle, and is quite completely useless.

>>8113767
>but your derivation is suspect. You seem to confuse state variables of the whole substance with variables of the individual particles, and leave no room for expectation values.
Yeah but...it werks™
>I don't think you understand why your model isn't useful.
I never ever said it was useful. I said it's original which it apparently is.

You couldn't disprove my equation, you couldn't prove it was done before so now you are attacking it as useless. So? This isn't engineering, this is pure science where we pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Have you ever come up with anything original?

FYI it isn't "marginally" more accurate than VDW.

For CO2:

van der Waals says Tb = 1099 K

My equation says Tb = 701 K

The actual value is Tb = 714 K

For N2:

van der Waals says Tb = 426 K

My equation says Tb = 319 K

The actual value is Tb = 327 K

van der Waals is 385 K out whereas mine got it to within 13 K

>>8113851
You could devise an equation that perfectly fits all existing data, but doing so wouldn't be interesting unless it could be used on new data. This is not as original as you think.

>>8113861
My equation isn't curve fitted to Boyle temperature data.
>This is not as original as you think.
Well for like the third time, post an equation for the Boyle temperature that is anywhere near as accurate as mine.

>>8113914
Fuck math tags.

Same guy as >>8106940 (You) here. I just actually looked at your first page in some detail and see two glaringly obvious flaws that I had missed before:
1.) The condition [math]U(r)=0[/math] is not a sufficient condition to say there are no forces between molecules of the gas as [math]F=\nabla_r U(r)[/math].
2.) Your proportionality between [math]Z−1[/math] and [math]U[/math] does not follow from your bullet points (even if they were correct) as there may be non-constant terms which don't alter the parity of [math]U[/math].

In light of these two problems, your underlying physics and basic mathematics are deeply flawed and so that your equation works at all is probably just a weird coincidence of starting with something that is a good fit (the Lennard-Jones potential) and not doing enough wrong to screw it up too badly.

>>8113928
I don't dispute any of this, derivation is a pile of horse shit. As I said I only ever did nine months of chemistry before dropping out. But it works meaning that it is a valid theory that could be reformulated into something that's actually rigorous.

>>8113969
>I know I just vomited on a paper and everything I wrote is retarded shit, but hear me out : it works!

fuck off

>>8114003
But it does. The comparison with experimental data is there for you to see. It's not a claim it's the truth. I'm saying it's badly derived because it was written by an amateur but to get the correct answer it must be fundamentally right.

>>8114027
The burden is on your to show this is worthwhile. The fact it works for a couple of cherrypicked examples of yours doesn't mean shit when you've clearly shown you know nothing of chemistry. "It works as far as I can see" doesn't mean anything, and it sure as hell doesn't mean it's "fundamentally right".

Holy fucking shit you can fit any kind of bullshit curve to any kind of fucking data you want you colossal retard that doesn't mean you've discovered a meaningful relationship

>>8113969
>derivation is a pile of horse shit
>But it works meaning that it is a valid theory
>>8114027
>to get the correct answer it must be fundamentally right.

If that were the case, you could just write down equation after equation, compare them to data, and if one of them comes close to describing experimental data, you'd have a "theory." Rinse and repeat.
Except this way you won't know anything about the physics involved, at all. What insight does this bring, exactly?
The derivation is shit? Ex falso...

>>8114052
>The burden is on your to show this is worthwhile
I did with the results. Stack Exchange agrees with me.
>couple of cherrypicked examples of yours
What's cherrypicked about them? Ethane and chlorine are very different gases no? Anyways feel free to test it out on any gas of your choice. Once you've done this and noted discrepancies then you will be qualified to to say that "the data was cherrypicked"
>you've clearly shown you know nothing of chemistry
I made an equation of state more accurate than one already in the literature despite knowing nothing of chemistry? How did I do it? Aliens?
>"It works as far as I can see" doesn't mean anything
No it works because it works. That means it works. I hear a lot of dismissals and not a lot of actual proof that my equation doesn't work.
>it sure as hell doesn't mean it's "fundamentally right".
Yeah it does. If the theory was incorrect it would not have gotten the right answer.

Anyway as I said I'm getting a whole lot of criticism from you but no actual reasons as to why the theory is bunk.

In order to back up your claims that it's "wrong" or "not original" you need to do two simple things; either provide proof that shows it doesn't match experimental data or provide an equation for Boyle temperatures that is either the same or better. This is your homework. if you cannot do this then I don't expect to hear from you again.

>>8114076
>>8114089
For the thousandth time it is not curve fitted to the data that it produces. This is plain to see in the document. It's curve fitted to the L-J potential but that hasn't got anything to do with Boyle temperatures.

>Stack Exchange agrees with me.
One person expressed mild interest and a heavy dose of skepticism and you construe it as "Stack Exchange agrees with me".

This is reaching pathetic levels of desperation. If you want to feel like you're special go join a cult.

>>8114123
I am >>8114089 and didn't claim you fit anything at all. Have you read my post?
All I am saying is that "the theory must be fundamentally right" is hardly the only conclusion you can draw from "here is this equation whose derivation is based on faulty physics and a shady derivation, but it seems to describe data somewhat reasonably well."
It boggles my mind how you think this conclusion is unavoidable.

>>8114129
If stack exchange didn't agree with me then others would have posted that it's bullshit. Stack Exchange is of a higher calibre than /sci/. Ive read his other answers, he appears to be well versed in physical chemistry, probably a grad student. What are your credentials exactly?

I see now what has happened, you were the haters at the beginning of the thread but when it wasn't disproved you slinked away. Since someone recently pointed out the derivation is flawed you have come back latching onto that as a reason to shout me down because you don't like to see others accomplish anything. It's not revolutionary or even useful but it is an accomplishment. You can say it's not an accomplishment all you want but until you post a better equation for the Boyle temperature which I have asked you to do about five times already why should I listen to you? How about you stop being a bitter asshole, it's not my fault that you never came up with anything original yourself. Attacking me won't change the fact that you're mediocre.

I am not here to claim the theory is revolutionary or even to claim credit. I came here to ask if it worked and was original. No-one has proved otherwise so shut the fuck up.

>>8114141
Sure it could be a straight fluke but I don't see how this is possible. Please highlight the part of the derivation where you think that I just made a wild guess?

>>8114027
>to get the correct answer it must be fundamentally right.

Ok, I have looked over your stuff some more and the more I look, the worse it gets. At the Boyle temperatures, your gas becomes incredibly dense. Furthermore, you have the problem that to get positive temperatures, your equation for the Boyle temperature requires the energy multiplier of the L-J potential be negative, meaning it is short range ridiculously strongly attractive and long range repulsive, etc. The more I look at it, the more I think the reason you get anything looking correct is pure luck with absolutely no good physical motivation.

>>8114151
If you tried to measure a vehicle's constant velocity, and you systematically overestimated both the distance it travels by some factor and the time it takes for that by the same factor, your systematic errors cancel out and give a correct result.
I am not sure if something similar might have happened, i.e. two perhaps faulty steps (or assumptions) in your derivation cancelled out to some extent, and I don't care to find out. But it is a possibility.
As it stands, the physical content is nebulous.

>>8114190
>luck
Had to be with only nine months of chemistry study. However I still think there's something to it, no way can you fluke a 9 page derivation.
>At the Boyle temperatures, your gas becomes incredibly dense
I don't get what you mean here
>Furthermore, you have the problem that to get positive temperatures, your equation for the Boyle temperature requires the energy multiplier of the L-J potential be negative, meaning it is short range ridiculously strongly attractive and long range repulsive, etc
If it's what I think your saying I noticed this too. Maybe the overall attraction and repulsion averages out to that which makes the gas behave ideally?

>>8114206
Perhaps. All I ever wanted was an expert in this field to explain it. Hopefully that stack exchange guy will.

>>8114206
But in any case how can a theory that is completely wrong give a correct result? Your example isn't completely wrong because s=d/t is correct. That's why I say even if the fuckup is rectified I still believe the theory will still work. I agree with you that there are fuckups but I don't agree that the entire thing is wrong. Remeber that it didn't just get one correct result it got three. An expression for Boyle temperature, an expression for critical temperature and that the ratio of the two is a constant. This would have to have been an astronomical fluke if the entire theory was complete bullshit

>>8114212
>I don't get what you mean here
Plug the Boyle temperature into your volume equation used to arrive at the Boyle temperature and calculate the volume per atom:
As [math]\sigma[/math] is small, the numerator is small; as [math]\ln\frac{3}{4}[/math] is negative, the denominator is huge (taking the '+' as the '-' leads to an imaginary volume which is nonsense), leading to a very small volume per atom.
>Maybe the overall attraction and repulsion averages out to that which makes the gas behave ideally?

That doesn't work as the only equilibrium position is unstable to perturbation. Thus, the gas should either collapse or blow away to zero density; no in between allowed.

>>8114241
I should add that it kinda makes sense that you end up getting negative temperature values since you are basically working with population inversion given your requirements on the Boltzmann factor.

>>8114097
>once you find a flaw then you can come back

once you prove you have anything worthwhile, you can say anything. before that, you're irrelevant.

also
>Yeah it does. If the theory was incorrect it would not have gotten the right answer.
you're retarded

>>8114241
This is edgy but one of the energy levels was imaginary because solving for V in the main equation always gave 2 imaginary results which I decided to combine into one real volume and hence energy level so maybe the volume really is imaginary?

My more serious answer is that the concept of Boyle temperature occurs under compression for it is the temperature at which you can't compress a gas into non-ideal behaviour. This holds up to a max pressure higher than usual after which the gas gives up and starts acting non-ideally as it should do. Maybe the equation is indicating the smallest volume and hence highest pressure that the Boyle temperature is valid up to?

>>8114258
I am just going to ignore you. I am only replying to those who give an informed technical critique of my work from now on like that other anon is.

>>8114270
>informed technical critique of my work
the relevant "technical critiques" of your "work" came long ago and you quickly accepted that you vomited on the paper and wrote a load of bullshit that seems to work with no justification

you're going nowhere. enjoy pretending to be relevant or have made anything for a bit longer.

>>8114261
>maybe the volume really is imaginary?
The volume is an observable and thus must be strictly real (and positive, in this case).

>Maybe the equation is indicating the smallest volume and hence highest pressure that the Boyle temperature is valid up to?
If we take the minima of the L-J potential to be the interatomic distance of a crystalline solid of the material (entirely reasonable), your equation of state returns, at the Boyle temperature, an interatomic spacing many times smaller than in a crystalline solid, so no. Your equation of state fails to describe the system realistically.

As I stated earlier, you should also end up with negative temperatures for your Boyle temperature since you enforce a population inversion when you calculate the Boltzmann factor. You don't because you fudged the energy multiplier to the L-J potential to get positive temperatures (and if you use negative temperatures, you end up with strictly complex volumes which is, again, unphysical). From this, I can conclude that your model doesn't work at all; you fudged some numbers to get realistic looking results.

Can you fucking go away now, "KingChem"?

>>8114279
This fudge I agree with. I do remember making it positive yet feeling that it shouldn't be.
>you fudged some numbers to get realistic looking results.
I still don't agree wholly with this, the numbers were realistic they were just the wrong sign. This implies the result is right but I fucked up the derivation.

So perhaps the theory is beyond repair but the law borne out of it is still true and apparently original. Have you ever seen it written anywhere that the Boyle temperature of a gas is directly proportional to the potential well depth?

>>8114277
You don't get anywhere if you don't try. You can spend your life on 4chan laughing at others while I keep on trying. One day I may achieve something notable while you stay a bitter loser.

File: molint1pic2.gif (4KB, 511x210px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 511x210px

>>8114279
I think this is why it works, the pair distribution function. As you can see there are four main bumps in the distribution indicating a higher probability of finding two molecules at those four distances apart.

>>8114373
>I still don't agree wholly with this, the numbers were realistic they were just the wrong sign. This implies the result is right but I fucked up the derivation.

Having the wrong sign for this means it is just wrong; the gas has not undergone a state inversion at the Boyle temperature as the Boyle temperature is positive. The result you should get, if you didn't fudge the sign, is then infinitely far from the experimental Boyle temperature. That you get negative temperatures is part of the construction of your derivation, not a simple mistake that can be made up for elsewhere. Essentially, that these temperatures should be negative makes your model wholly invalid and your equation of state fundamentally wrong.

>>8114384
>writing some bullshit on a paper and pretending it's something of value is trying
go study, you lazy, useless piece of shit

>>8114402
This is clearly for a crystalline solid, which you are not trying to describe; it is irrelevant to your model of liquids and gases.

>>8114403
>The result you should get, if you didn't fudge the sign, is then infinitely far from the experimental Boyle temperature.
I can tell you're a rigorous guy and I'm not attacking that but I'm saying that a wrong theory that got the negative of the correct result is worth another look. That's my view at least.
>your model wholly invalid and your equation of state fundamentally wrong.
Ok I agree with you the equation of state is finished but there must be another undiscovered equation of state out there that gives the same results that mine does. Find this and the result can be published. Either that or I just accidentally got a result given by a known equation but I have asked so many times in this thread for someone to provide this equation and no-one has leading me to believe that my result must be original.
>>8114407
It's for a liquid actually
>>8114406
Hey fuckboy read this
http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/31217/1/IJCT%201(5)%20261-265.pdf

It's a summary of different ways to calculate Boyle temperature. They give the reduced form Tb/Tc.

For CO2 the experimental value is 2.35. They used the van der Waals Equation, the Redlich-Kwong Equation, the Soave Equation and the Peng-Robinson Equation. My prediction of 2.41 beats van der Waals, Redlich-Kwong and the Soave Equation. Only the Peng-Robinson Equation is more accurate than mine. I know my derivation was faulty but how can you laugh at someone who just beat out three equations of states after only a few months of chemistry education? The best part is it isn't even a messy collection of fudge factors like all the others. It's simply a very elegant ln(2) / [ ln(4) - ln(3)]

>>8114462
>using fuckboy unironically
are you a 12 year old girl

as everyone already told you: it's easy to fit a retarded, nonsense model to some data. you clearly fudged the numbers until they worked. your "model" isn't anything.

>>8114473
I already said like 10 times that it was never curve fitted to Boyle temperature data therefore your argument is invalid.
>it's easy to fit a retarded, nonsense model to some data
This is actually not easy, all those equations of states that I listed are unashamed curve fits. Yet despite this they are all the work of prominent academics of their time. So even if my equation was a curve fit which it isn't it's still commendable. If it's so easy why don't you do it? Go on, curve fit some data at 300 K and see how well it works at 800 K

You are a really bitter person.

>>8114487
>I said it's good so you can't say it's bad
you vomited over a paper and fuged whatever came out until it seemed to work
what do you want me to tell you? you know you're full of shit. go study.

>>8114491
Yeah man you're a special kind of mongoloid
>My equation is more accurate than other equations which are curve fits
>Tell me my equation is retarded because it's a curve fit
>It isn't even a curve fit

Like honestly what is wrong with you? Do you even think about what you say? Even if my equation was a curve fit that doesn't make it bad because every single equation of state except the ideal one is also a curve fit. Furthermore as I said, managing to curve fit the data better than most other academics who have tried would be pretty amazing. But I never even curve fit the data so your entire argument is ridiculous anyway.

>>8114504
your equation is nonsense splashed into a paper and fudged until it seemed to work.

I don't know in how many ways I need to repeat this bro. You can't be serious here.

>>8114508
>If it's a fudge why does it beat other fudges?
>If fudging equations of state is easy why are professors writing papers on doing exactly this?

Answer these questions. Better yet stop shitting up my thread and go away

>>8114513
anon
bro
what do you think you're getting out of this?
you know you made a big turd. you need to be more in touch with reality. talk to a professor, or enroll into something if you aren't yet. better yet, talk to a counselor. you need help getting to understand that this thing you're doing isn't "undergraduate research"

>>8114517
>cannot answer a single one of my questions
>cannot prove his point
>still shouting "it's a big turd!" with no justification beyond his butthurt
Yep you're just a troll. Why did I waste time replying to you?

>>8114520
you already admitted everything you wrote is painfully wrong when anons who knew some shit told you so. anyone can read the thread and see that.

your only justification is it seems to work in some cases you picked. you're really fighting reality here. you can't go around life assuming everyone who thinks differently from you is wrong or trying to harm you. you really need to talk to a counselor or a friend or someone.

File: 1329251632155.gif (456KB, 202x150px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 202x150px

>attacks him for using word
>ad hominem everywhere
>almost no critique of the contents of the paper itself

Jesus christ the amount of fucking autism here is extreme, even for being /sci/. Why can't you guys just chill the fuck out a little?

>>8114535
see
>>8114403
>>8114373
>>8114279

anon knows he wrote up random shit that seems to give correct results, and that's all he knows about his work. that's why no real critique can be given. it's shit.

>>8114520
Ok, there's plenty of problems with your derivation, the assumptions you make, the fact that your derivation relies on quantisation where you haven't made quantum assumptions, the fudging of the partition function.
Where did you get the data for potential well depth of the different gases, [math]\epsilon[/math]?

>>8112746
>>8104653
kys

>>8114543
Ok, so maybe OP doesn't know what he's doing, but the examples do seem to be accurate, so why don't we look at why it seems to work, rather than berate OP for the tenth time.

Mocking OP, even if he deserves it, gets us no further in figuring out why his shit works.

>>8115405

hi OP :^), why do you pretend to not be op desu?

>>8115405
Try again.

>>8115405
no one gives a fuck about why your shit seems to work because it's still nonsense

>>8115442
I'm not OP, But I am interested in why it works, kludge or not.

You guys and OP are way too defensive.

>>8115456
why would you want to waste your time in some nonsense that gives nice numbers instead of studying something worthwhile?

>>8115427
>top kek

>>8114462
>I'm saying that a wrong theory that got the negative of the correct result is worth another look.

The "negative of the correct result," in this case means the entirely wrong result. You cannot write off the negative sign as inconsequential [that you get negative temperatures close to the right result stems more form the properties of the L-J potential and you failing to fuck up badly enough to break it].

>Ok I agree with you the equation of state is finished but there must be another undiscovered equation of state out there that gives the same results that mine does

Your equation of state gives fundamentally incorrect information and thus any equation of state that gives similar results would be similarly incorrect.

>>8115456
First, OPs equations give entirely wrong results due to sign issues. Second, the reason that it gives anything resembling the right answer stems entirely from the use of the L-J potential and not anything new or creative OP did.

>>8115471
I only looked at it as an interesting exercise in critique and a refresher on stat mech. Figuring out how and why OP was entirely wrong was a fun exercise for this [Also, it doesn't give nice numbers; it gives fundamentally wrong numbers].

>>8115442
Science is about whether something gives accurate prediction or not, isn't it?

>>8115503
Yes and no. You can't have a model that very accurately describes one thing while being terrible at other related things. Take OP's model as an example: even if we say that his temperature calculations are "good," we either end up with imaginary observables (using the actual temperatures) or ridiculous densities, many orders of magnitude greater than the density of a crystalline solid by taking the temperatures OP gets by fudging signs).

>ITT:
>OP creates nothing new (that is already wrong due to what others have said) and wonders why no one takes him seriously

>posting the equation you created and want to publish
>posting the document that explains in detail how you got there
I'm no chemist but if this is worth anything then I guarantee at least one person in this thread intends to publish it themselves before you get the chance.

>>8112726
I dunno, that guy was pretty critical.
Do you have any response to:
>1) Z-1 be proportional to U(r). 2) Even accepting 1), when you assumed U(r)=0 for ideal gas law behaviour and replaced according to obtain the NkT/(pV)NkT/(pV), as you imposed ideal gas behaviour that should be 1, and it is valida for every V. Also you assumed it in the right hand side but not in the left hand side.
??

>>8115562
I'm a real chemist and I second this. I can tell people I work on glycopeptide chemistry and the basics, but I would not fucking send people my lab notebook or even tell people the (not yet patented) details of our reactions and target compounds. That would be so fucking stupid lol.

>>8114535
>>8115405
>>8115456
>>8115503
OP here, whoever you are thanks for supporting me.
>>8115427
I put on a trip so you can tell who is me and who isn't me
>>8115812
I haven't gotten around to replying yet because I basically have to relearn my own theory. It's been seven years remember. I will reply.
>>8115562
>>8115856
Don't give a shit, This thread kind of highlights why I quit pure science in the first place. The amateur is either ignored or ridiculed. Even if he tries to follow the scientific method he's automatically thrown in with the pyramid power club. All I ever asked for was help to make it better but no matter how much I demonstrated it's predictive power it was either ignored or spat on. I do engineering now. Not only is it more in line with my real interests (didn't enjoy lab work anyway), in engineering I can create a product, every other engineer can laugh at it but their opinion doesn't matter because if it works I can just sell it and make money. Pure science, my progress is at the whims of a pecking order. If other scientists don't like your theory, doesn't matter how good it is, it's dead.

I just would like to see it published for the benefit of others, I don't care whose name is tacked onto it for I have no involvement in chemistry anymore and I have bigger projects that I am working on. I'm now an engineer and a businessman.

>>8115812
to your first question: U(r) is a measure of the attractive force between molecules, Z is a measure of the average distance between molecules. it follows that if U(r) is increased, Z is reduced making Z-1 increase and if U(r) is decreased, Z is increased making Z-1 decrease. Therefore Z varies in direct proportion to U(r). To your second question: I shouldn't have wrote that, PV=zNkT and that is always valid. To your third question: I'm just saying that it's a quintic so by the fundamental theorem of algebra it will always give five roots. To your fourth question: I just noticed that the root with the largest value was always P/nRT.

>>8116219
>U(r) is a measure of the attractive force between molecules
No it doesn't; the potential energy at any given point has no influence upon the underlying physics as adjusting the potential by an additive constant has no influence upon the underlying physics.

> Z is a measure of the average distance between molecules
No it isn't; it is a measure of departure from ideal behavior.

> it follows that if U(r) is increased, Z is reduced making Z-1 increase and if U(r) is decreased, Z is increased making Z-1 decrease. Therefore Z varies in direct proportion to U(r)
This is nonsense. The function [math]x^3[/math] increases (for [math]x>0[/math]) when [math]x^2[/math] increases, but [math]x^3[/math] is clearly not directly proportional to [math]x^2[/math].

>>8116219
OI, mate. Answer me fuckin question.

Where'd you get your values for potential well depth, [math]\epsilon[/math]?

Cause using values I've found online for each of those, I get wildly less accurate answers for your boyle temperatures and critical temperatures.

>>8112751
So you are gonna write your thesis in word?
Really niggah, get good, every engineer uses LaTeX aswell.
/Computer Engineer

>>8116139
>I just would like to see it published for the benefit of others

Except your derivation is shoddy and your equation has glaring problems when not cherrypicking. Why can't you just accept that there is something wrong with it and go correct it?

>>8116446
>>8117020
Atkins Physical Chemistry. Are you using SI units?
>>8116446
>No it doesn't; the potential energy at any given point has no influence upon the underlying physics as adjusting the potential by an additive constant has no influence upon the underlying physics.

The L-J potential is very plainly nothing more than a balance between attractive and repulsive forces between molecules.
>No it isn't; it is a measure of departure from ideal behavior.

Yes and the gas departs from ideal behaviour by doing what? Having a smaller or larger volume than an ideal gas would. And if the volume changed then so must the average distance between molecules. It follows that a gas departing from ideal behaviour is equivalent to departing from the intermolecular separation of an ideal version of the gas.
>This is nonsense. The function x3x3 increases (for x>0x>0) when x2x2 increases, but x3x3 is clearly not directly proportional to x2x2.

You're right on this point. I've noticed that virtually all of the criticism has been aimed at the derivation of the equation i.e the first 2 pages. There was only one argument against the interpretation part i.e the energy levels which was that the manipulation of the Boltzmann distribution to give the Boyle and critical temperatures gives the correct magnitude but the wrong sign. Seeing as there is no actual solid link between the equation and it's results beyond my super obvious observation that quintics have five solutions I am starting to feel that the equation is bunk but the energy level population analysis is completely separate and still valid. Seems to have been a coincidence that my bullshit equation turned out to be a polynomial that got me thinking in the direction of multiple volumes. multiple intermolecular separations and hence multiple potential energy levels.

Ok good job /sci/ you've finally managed to probably disprove half of the theory. But can you kill off the rest or will I be the next Mochizuki?

And for that guy who says it's "completely wrong" because the sign is wrong, it get's the correct magnitude. If you're consistently getting the correct magnitude but the wrong sign then that means it's probably not a fluke, it's right but you made a mistake in the maths somewhere

For someone who equates chemistry to witchcraft, can someone help me understand what's happening ? I read the thread and googled some words but so far it seems like:

>there is a gas law that predicts behaviour due to some constants and the curve of gathered data for those substances
>through some innovate sorcery op has created an equation which makes more accurate predictions for how gases behaves that can more closely match some value to the curve, an improvement over previous methods in certain scenarios
>made a couple algebra errors but still gets correct magnitudes

?

Maybe I can convince people it works by making extra predictions? I've done some thinking and have come up with this extra prediction from my theory.

Melting point = E / k ln(1/4)

>>8106698
OP why has your reddit post been removed?

>>8119841
Has it? Last time I checked it was up but nobody replied. Let me log in and see what happened

Can people please comment on the new prediction?

>>8119841
It's still there.

Dude who studied Chem E and somewhat knows what this is..

I wouldn't believe it unless you actually measured properties of real gases/liquids and a lot of them at different conditions. It would be so much fucking easier learning 1 perfect equation of state than one for every type of gas/liquid.

>>8115503
No, science is about understanding nature. That extends beyond fundamental physics because approximate descriptions like Newtonian physics, chemistry and biology can help understand systems that are too complex to be studied from first principles, and are generally insensitive to the fundamental theory behind them (this isn't true in quantum gravity, which is why it's so difficult).

Obviously accurate predictions (within the appropriate domain of applicability) are a requirement of a good theory, but a good theory must do more than that. OP's theory contradicts a a lot of known results, even if it does make some accurate predictions (though this guy disagrees >>8117020).
More problematically, his reasoning is completely incorrect so whatever results he might be able to derive at the end is not a consequence of his theory. He can claim that [math]\frac{PV}{n\mathcal RT}-1\propto \left(\frac{n\mathcal RT}{PV}\right)^2\left[\left(\frac{n\mathcal RT}{PV}\right)^2-1\right]\;.[/math], and that [math]\frac{T_B}{T_C} = \frac{ln 2}{ln 4 - ln 3}[/math], but that is unrelated to his Heim theory hypotheses. I could make up any theory I like and derive the same equation using dodgy mathematics.

>>8119894
Well, if the results are correct fudged sign or not, then it's worth at least checking why it's correct. Unless writing it off as too much luck is satisfactory.

>>8118718
>So you are gonna write your thesis in word?
What's wrong with that? It's just another piece of software....

>>8119933
/sci/ is pretentious, you should know this.

File: where is your god now.png (82KB, 678x952px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 678x952px

/sci/ BTFO

This thread reminds me of that Japanese dude that refutes modern Quantum Chemistry to study atoms and molecules and has developed a revision of the old Bohr model that actually makes better predictions of experimental energy values than Quantum, but nobody acknowledges since it's not following what everybody else is. But something about the new theory has to make sense, even if it's not 100% right since you can't get that close to experimental values only due to luck:

http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/
http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/configu.html

>>8119906
It isn't correct, though. I checked some of the values, and they are wrong. His equation (I won't say model because the model is not logically connected to the equation) gives T_c = 180 K for argon. Likewise his T_B should be 434 K.

>>8119945
This has got to be the dumbest things I've ever seen.

>>8119995
Post your working and sources for your data. Bet you didn't use the right units.

>>8119995
And the T_B you got via whatever you did is still more or less right anyway seeing as the experimental value is 411 K.

>>8119945
You should probably review that privacy reminder.

>>8120004
Nice ad hominem. I'd prefer it if you explained how a theory that's accurate to two decimal places is "wrong"

>>8120023
>8120023
this guy doesnt give a fuck man if you publish it it will give him satisfaction

File: raw.gif (641KB, 498x396px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 498x396px

>This thread
Has all of chemistry really been BTFO by a neckbeard in his basement?

>>8120017
http://www.sklogwiki.org/SklogWiki/index.php/Argon#cite_note-10
There are 4 references for the value of [math]\frac{\epsilon}{k_B}[/math] for argon, all in SI units. Taking the most recent value of 125, you get T_C = 180 K, when it should be 150 K.
I don't know what VdW says, but your equation is certainly not correct.

>>8119945
Your function doesn't seem to be taking in account pressure.

>>8120025
Probably because it doesn't work for any other element - which you should have checked before getting excited enough to post it.

>>8120171
>>8120190
So I must have referenced values different to those five. So what? These measurements vary.

VdW gives 160 K why is this considered correct but 180 K is not correct? Argon is hard to model with L-J potentials because the intermolecular forces are weak.

E/k for ethylene is 199 K. Plugging that into my equation gives a critical temperature of 287 K. The actual value is 283 K.

E/k for tetrafluoromethane is 152 K, plugging that into my equation gives 219 K. The actual value is 227 K.

E/k for oxygen is 118 K, plugging that into my equation gives 170 K. The actual value is 163 K.

Source:
http://www.webassign.net/mcqpchem1/16-table-07.png

This puts to bed any claims that I faked the results.
>>8120183
It's really the triple point.

>>8120127
no google is trying to give him a privacy reminder

File: sci BTFO again.png (174KB, 1061x842px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1061x842px

>>8120183
Also check this out

Yep, you're in a Nobel Prize thread boys.

>inb4 OP attempts to publish and gets BTFO by several professors and experts who know their shit way better than this faggot

>>8120304
>peer review
It's viXra and crackpot website for me old chap.

>>8120282
nice

well done anon, make sure to thank /sci/ when you get your award

>>8120272
Yo

Just checked your triple point / critical temperature link and it doesn't hold for oxygen.

Why do you think that is?

>>8120340
Because his equation is wrong

>>8106130
I can print it off and find an audience at JPL. interested?

File: new predictions.png (56KB, 794x909px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 794x909px

>>8120340
Dunno, probably something to do with bond type.
>>8120409
See picture
>>8120424
Sure, I'm a huge NASA fan but why would JPL be interested in chemical work?

>>8120424
also if you're serious don't show them the document, wait for me to put together a new one. I am abandoning the equation of state and adding the bit about triple point.

The bit about the triple point is revolutionary. Not only is it the world's first equation for calculating the triple point but it now means you can estimate Lennard-Jones parameters simply by watching the substance melt. None of this http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/6/2132.full.pdf shit anymore.

I'm going to bed, I have to take my wife's son to school tomorrow. I'll reply to your questions tomorrow.

>>8120511
Thanks for the blogpost OP

>>8120511
>KingChem
>doesn't know chem
>dropped out of uni after one semester
>KingChem

holy shit you're a delusional fuck
this is the most elaborate troll I've seen

>>8120511
>school
>on Saturday

>>8119958
I think part of it is that if you have a tradition of how things have been done for 100 year and some nobody comes along claiming amazing results through some obscure and possibly pseudoscientific method, the natural response is going to be skepticism.

However, if the model is well explained then people will take the time to try to understand it and build it into the exiting framework (DFT in quantum chemistry is a great example of this because it was presented as an extension of what was already known about wavefunctions). If the model is not well explained and the results it obtains are dubious, as is the case in this thread and the links you posted, then it is not worth the time for academics to try and change their thinking.

Partly, this boils down to the realization that it is a lot more difficult to have an original idea nowadays than many people think, because of how complicated science has become, so that hidden results in an existing theory make seemingly new ideas unproductive.

>>8120438
This is pretty cool man. I wish I understood what was going on better so I could tell you whether this a real result or not, but the fact that you have gotten so much mileage out of this relatively simple idea has me impressed and it seems like you are starting to convert some of the other people on this board too. If I were you, I would try out these predictions of yours on larger sets of molecules, see the ones for which it works and the ones for which it doesn't and see if you can extrapolate any physical model from the nature of those well-described molecules versus that of the poorly-described ones.Clearly, the math was a bit weird, but the results so far are impressive.

>>8120825
people already tried other things and it fails ridiculously, mainly because he just vomited on a page. it's not "a bit weird", he already admitted it's complete nonsense, and it doesn't work.

>>8119668
>The L-J potential is very plainly nothing more than a balance between attractive and repulsive forces between molecules.
Maybe if you are retarded and don't know basic physics of how potentials relate to forces.

>Having a smaller or larger volume than an ideal gas would.
Maybe if you are too retarded to realize that the denominator is not single variate.

>And for that guy who says it's "completely wrong" because the sign is wrong, it get's the correct magnitude. If you're consistently getting the correct magnitude but the wrong sign then that means it's probably not a fluke, it's right but you made a mistake in the maths somewhere

You do not get negative temperatures because of a math error; you get negative temperatures because you explicitly state that the population is inverted you moron. "I can take the absolute value" is not an argument since the negative sign actually means something.

>>8120545
Ah you got me
>>8120825
Thank you for your support
>>8120867
>>8120924
>>8120537
So I created the only equation in existence that can predict the triple point, in some cases being only 1 Kelvin off yet I'm a "delusional retard whose theory is nonsense?

>>8121739
>yet I'm a "delusional retard whose theory is nonsense?
Do you want to know the number one reason why you won't be taken seriously? It's shit like

>I dunno man, it Just Werks™

Just werks isn't a good theory. You need a framework and explanation to provide your predictions.

>>8121792
I gave the explanation. It was debated and we all came to the conclusion that the equation of state itself had to go because not only was it heavily flawed it didn't actually have anything to do with the results. However nobody has debunked the second part, the energy levels and Boltzmann distribution beyond "the sign is apparently wrong". I said that this is probably just a small unseen maths error and even if it isn't absolute temperature has magnitude only so only that matters. This is where all the predictions are coming from, I even made another prediction from it halfway through the thread that also turned out to be right.

>>8121806
well, you're definitely doing a better job than the AI/machine learning faggots, at least

t. AI/machine learning faggot

>>8121821
Thanks I guess. I hear a lot about AI but I know next to nothing about it. All I can say about it is that I really don't see how you can give a computer consciousness (is that what AI is about?) and if you could, this scares me.I'd like to know more though. Fear comes from the unknown after all.

>>8121806
>I said that this is probably just a small unseen maths error and even if it isn't absolute temperature has magnitude only so only that matters
Negative absolute temperature has meaning in statistical mechanics. That you refuse to acknolwedge that this is a massive glaring flaw in your results is a demonstration that you have no idea what you are doing. As for the "quantization" of the volume, as I have already said, the volumes you get end up with densities many, many, many times higher than the density of a crystalline solid and thus they are absurd. For why you get numbers that are approximately correct, it is because of the Lennard-Jones potential. If you did your stat mech better, you would end up with much better results. How do you think they come up with those fitting parameters in thee first place?

>>8121849
We all know the temperatures we are talking about here are positive therefore it's just common sense to take the magnitude. Are you really saying that you want to throw the only way to calculate the triple point of a substance into the toilet on a technicality? I hear what your saying that it isn't rigorous but many theories started out as un-rigorous. Just give it a chance and suggest improvements. Trashing it helps nothing but your ego.

>>8122181
>Are you really saying that you want to throw the only way to calculate the triple point of a substance into the toilet on a technicality?
But you can't use your theory to calculate anything, because your results don't follow from your assumptions! There are more problems than just the sign issue, and they've been pointed out in this thread. On top of that, the result you end up with isn't accurate.
Also, disregarding the minus sign because the result is "obviously" positive is like disregarding negative energy levels in relativistic quantum mechanics. Dirac decided not to do that, and predicted anti-particles. Take your theory seriously and you might learn something from it (though I'm pretty sure you won't like the conclusion...).

File: 313e9201c1d65497c1fe54ac5533486e.jpg (14KB, 236x330px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 236x330px

>>8122401
>you can't use your theory to calculate anything
>the result you end up with isn't accurate.
Remember that time I predicted the Nitrogen triple point to be half of it's critical temperature and it was precisely that to two decimal places? Remember all of those tables I posted showing agreement for many substances to within 10 Kelvin? It's like banging my head against a brick wall the amount of data comparisons I've posted yet people are still claiming it doesn't work. The accuracy of the theory is not up for debate all that is open to argument is rigour. I agree it's not rigorous but that is no argument for trashing it.
>your results don't follow from your assumptions!
Remember that time I said halfway through the thread that I'll make another prediction that depopulating the last energy level will solidify the gas? Remember how this turned out to be spot on, doing the maths on that assumption did indeed give the triple point?
>Dirac decided not to do that, and predicted anti-particles
This is not particle physics where anything goes apparently, this is chemistry and a negative triple point is clearly preposterous.

Look I know it's hard for your fragile ego to congratulate another, but I assure you that it's good for you. Bitterness will eat you up. You make valid points that the equation of state made incorect assumptions and the general lack of rigour of my theory which I have taken on board (I ditched the first half of the theory including the equation of state remember) but at the end of the day it is extremely clear that you are plainly refusing to admit that the theory works in the face of all the evidence because you desperately don't want to be shown up by an unemployed dropout. I'm sorry that you feel this way but plugging your ears and screaming "la la la it's bullshit" won't make the accurate predictions go away. A non-insecure person would say "good work but it needs improving" and leave it at that.

>>8122438
So are you gonna publish or what faggot?

t. your dulcinea

>>8122448
Once I figure out how. Email a physical chemistry journal? Is that how it's done?
>dulcinea
Aww, how sweet of you. I am touched.

>>8122438
>Remember all of those tables I posted showing agreement for many substances to within 10 Kelvin?
5 substances is worthless, and at least one counterexample has been provided. It's surprising that it is not obviously curve fitting to data. But you need more than that to impress me. Consider acquiring more data and testing your model against it, rather than repeating the same line. Some complaints against you are idiotic, but that does not make your model an immediate success. Provide more evidence or fuck off. You have loads of data available, so there is no excuse to expect others to verify for you.

And considering you have ascended to a resident tripper now that we know who you are, you're doing the opposite of impress, you seem desperate for attention. As if the opinions of KingChem on other subjects mean more than any other dumbass anon. I don't systematically hate tripcodes like most, but you are becoming an excellent example of why they should usually be restricted to one thread.

>>8122438
I feel like if a theory is completely rigorous, predictions being off by 10K is not too big a deal. For unrigorous arguments don't you want much, much, higher accuracy?? Or are Chem measurements and predictions that imprecise compared to even bio?

>>8122468
email anyone already and get laughed at you delusional fuck

>>8122181
>therefore it's just common sense to take the magnitude.
Why not just go "I know what the answer should be so that's the answer" at that point? There is little difference at this point since you started with an population inversion. If you don't get negative temperatures as a result, you are failing to calculate Boltzmann factors. Thus, your negative temperatures are not a quirk, but an explicit and required "feature" of your method.

>Just give it a chance and suggest improvements
For where your calculations start, your results are god awful. The L-J potential, with modern fitting parameters, should be far more accurate than your results. That your results are so far off when you begin with a potential that has been numerically fine tuned to produce accurate results is a sign it is a terrible method you are employing. You are also continuing to ignore the problems with the

>Trashing it helps nothing but your ego.
I brought about many valid criticisms and you failed to address any of them and have instead displayed extreme ignorance of the basic physics you are attempting to describe and refusal to listen to any dissenting opinion. There is nothing to improve; your model is flawed form the ground up and does not return anything reasonable for any parameter you calculate.

>this is still going

>>8119945
You aren't even trying to pretend that you are not salty anymore, are you?

>>8122507
delusion isn't salt, friend

>>8122525
Being butthurt that /sci/ shits on his work and trying to get back at them with a "/sci/ BTFO" and that pic is.

>>8122471
In my defence it's hard to find lennard jones parameter data
>>8122494
So you've given up trying to prove it doesn't work and are now attacking the accuracy? Guess I'll have to repeat for what is this the sixth time? Post an equation for Boyle temperature and triple point that's more accurate than mine. are you going to ignore this request yet again and continue to talk shit about "it's not an improvement"?
>refusal to listen to any dissenting opinion
It's like you're not even reading my posts. I said very clearly that I ditched half of the theory due to /sci/ criticism. I also said that I agree it isn't rigorous. you're the one being pig-headed.
>>8122507
>>8122525
>>8122591
>confident=salty
I believe in my theory what is wrong with that? I didn't really believe at the start of the thread but now because of the repeated impressive results and the fact that most /sci/ criticism are just ad hominems I am confident that this is a good theory. /sci/ is BTFO.

>using 2 instead of two
nigga, that shit was the first i noticed before i immediately minimised your picture

>>8122507
>>this is still going
I'm enjoying it desu. It makes me wish that "exambabby" anon would come back and give us an update.

>>8123594
fucking imbecile
ditching half a bucket of vomit doesn't mean the remaining half isn't vomit still
retarded underage tripfags in 4chan holy shit

>>8124276
Exambabby was cool/funny, this sperg is retarded.

>>8124276
>It makes me wish that "exambabby" anon would come back and give us an update.
Indeed, but mainly due to >>8124288

>>8124276
It's an interesting thread.

>>8124276
>>8124288
who the hell is exambabby? and lol @ how you still haven't provided an alternate equation for triple point. Just ignored my request five times and threw insults at me
>>8124287
>calls a university dropout underaged
>im the retarded one

>>8124303
>i swear I went to university!

the nerve of you, underage fucker, asking for an "alternative triple point equation" when yours doesn't even work

>>8124303
>university dropout

I think I understand now.

File: 1398915350906.png (564KB, 719x719px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 719x719px

>>8124310
Well if I didn't that would make it even more amazing
>yours doesn't work
Well simply post an equation that gets values closer to the triple point than mine does. If my equation "doesn't work" then this should be easy. Your repeated dodging of my very simple request to back up your claim that my theory doesn't work by posting another more accurate equation is getting tiresome and quite frankly pathetic.
>>8124395
This entire argument is your own fault because you waltzed into the thread and declared my theory to be bullshit right from the beginning. You got BTFO but because of your earlier dismissals and attacks you are now trapped into making an endless stream of increasingly ridiculous and irrelevant attacks against my theory in order to save face. My suggestion would be to grow up but hey it's your life, if you want to spend the rest of the week throwing ad hominems at me instead of admitting that you were wrong and leaving the thread just to preserve your internet honour then more power to you.

>>8124411
>This entire argument is your own fault because you waltzed...etc...etc

You do realize that I'm not even the person you think you are addressing? You do realize multiple people have been disagreeing with you not just a single person?

>>8124310
You can't win an arguement with an ignorant man

>>8124414
simply post an equation that gets values closer to the triple point than mine does. If my equation "doesn't work" then this should be easy.

simply post an equation that gets values closer to the triple point than mine does. If my equation "doesn't work" then this should be easy.

>>8124453
no equation can do this. yours clearly doesn't, as tons of people already pointed out. it doesn't work for any other element, even when you explicitly fucked up the numbers to match

No way I'm actually reading all of this, but if you are so sure that you are right OP, why don't you continue working on it and find out if you were wrong yourself? If you don't want to do that, then this whole thing is silly and it doesn't even matter.

>>8124466
How is it possible for gas equation to work on substances as varied as argon and carbon dioxide and benzene if it" only works for a few gases". These are wildly different substances anon. If it only worked on a certain type of molecule then it would have failed miserably for non polars and done well with polars or vice versa. Or maybe there would have been differences in accuracy based on molecule size. The range of substances I've tested it on throws the argument that it "only works on a few gases" out of the window. And then there's your fluke argument, five wildly different gases I got results accurate to within 10 K for all of them just by chance? Really. Post any list of Lennard-Jones parameters you want and i'll calculate everything for all of them. Then you can't say I cherrypicked the data.

I have never met anyone so stubborn.

>>8124477
See >>8120438
This is what they are arguing about. They don't want to admit that my equation works when you can see with your own two eyes right there that it does.

As to your question I have looked over it and I decided the first half is wrong but the second half with the predictions are not. These other anons are claiming it was all a fluke. Okay let's say it was which I highly doubt it is. That doesn't mean the equation is wrong it just means we don't know the reason behind the equation. Like if you blindfolded yourself and wrote down some random symbols and that expression turned out to predict gravity or whatever. The fact you got it by fluke doesn't mean it's wrong, if it matches the data it matches the data. Anyway that's irrelevant because it's not a fluke there is a theory behind it.

>>8124494
more nonsense
it works ONLY on this list of yours.
it doesn't have anything to do with the nature of the elements, because you clearly vomited that abortion of a formula and twisted it to fit only these for some reason
try it for more elements like other anons did and you'll see how idiotic you are

>>8124524
>my equation works
cool, then tell your professors about it
oh right, they called you retarded before your failed out
have you wondered why that might be?

>>8124525
POST YOUR OWN FUCKING LIST OF L-J POTENTIALS FOR ME TO CALCULATE FROM IF MINE ARE "CHERRYPICKED" THEN.

YOU HAVE TO DO ONE THING, ONE TO PROVE YOUR POINT AND YOU CAN'T EVEN DO THAT.

AND POST THE RAW LIST NOT JUST YOUR CHOICES SO WE KNOW YOU DIDN'T CHERRYPICK.

>>8124534
>WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH IM ANGRY

you pick any you want. grab one other element and try.
fucking baby

>>8124536
No, no you post the source so I won't do all those calculations only to hear "hurr cherrypicked!"

I'm waiting.

>>8124557
keep waiting then. good luck trying to get anyone to take your bullshit seriously

Here's an idea, email the Physical Review Letter editors. [email protected]
Or submit your work https://authors.aps.org/Submissions/login/new

>>8115503
The moment that something makes one contradicting prediction, it is wrong. That is how science works; by slowly testing theories until they are disproven and replaced. The ones that don't even predict everything correctly from the start are completely worthless.

On the flip side, don't take this as a total loss OP. Sure, you came up with something that turned out to be entirely wrong even if you fluked a couple of good results. At least by now, you've learned a few things both in terms of knowing more chemistry and attempting to make discoveries. I think you can gain a lot from this if you take the lesson to heart and carry it with you in other aspects of your life too.

>>8124651
do it faggot

>>8124654
What contradicting prediction? If you meant the negative temperature I already explained why you're being an autist. You know that the sheer effort that you've put into shooting me down shows how butthurt you are. You already said you think the theory is shit so why are you still here? Why not just hide my thread if you think it's bullshit? The fact that you're so desperate to prove me wrong shows that I bruised your ego.
>>8124651
Alright. they seem very prestigious though. My result is new but it's not groundbreaking.

>>8124569
Look at this guys. He made a claim that I cherrypicked so I offered to analyze any data that he presents and surprise surprise he has declined. I wonder why that is? Could it be that he knows that I will get accurate predictions from even his chosen data thereby making him look like an idiot?

Fucking coward.
>>8124654
See above, you keep saying it's a fluke or a cherrypick or whatever so why haven't you submitted your own data for me to test the theory on? It's just one simple thing for you to do and you can prove your claim easily. Yet you won't do it. I wonder why?

>>8124654
ayy lmao man just give it up the results are clearly not a fluke. it could well be cherrypicked so just do what he asked and provide your own gases so this shitstorm can finally end

I'm going through your doc. Very first observation I make. Your equation of state is retarded. You've already said as much, but let me show you why. It is the Ideal Gas Law in disguise.

[eqn]\frac{PV}{nRT}-1 \,\,\,\alpha\,\,\, \left( \frac{nRT}{PV} \right) ^2 \left( \left( \frac{nRT}{PV} \right) ^2 -1 \right)[/eqn]

[eqn]S-1 = C\left( S ^{-4} - S ^{-2} \right)[/eqn]

[eqn]S + S ^{-2} - S ^{-4} -1 = 0 [/eqn]

Solutions are S={1, plus 4 complex valued solutions}

Rejecting the complex solutions because they are unphysical, we find

[eqn]S=1[/eqn]

[eqn]\frac{PV}{nRT}=1[/eqn]

[eqn]PV=nRT[/eqn]

I'll commit more as I go.

OP, help me understand.

Your table for Critical temperature on page 8 seems calculated from the equation:
[eqn]T_c=\frac{\epsilon}{kln2}[/eqn]
You mention at the beginning that [math]\epsilon[/math] is the distance to the equilibrium point of the potential, although you never seem to supply what values you used in for your results. Inverting the equation to solve for [math]\epsilon[/math] given [math]T_c[/math], and assuming [math]k[/math] is Boltzman's constant (1.38e-23 [J/K]), I find that [math]\epsilon[/math] is on the order of 1e-21[m]. This is an absurd result because it is many orders of magnitude smaller than the diameter of an atom. Did I interpret your equation incorrectly? What values of [math]\epsilon[/math] did you use?

>>8125045
kek, it begins, the end of this nonsense that is KingChem

>>8111622
>homeworkhelp.se says i should publish
well whoop-de-fuckin-doo

>>8125090
epsilon is an energy not a length
I used values from Atkins Physical Chemistry
Here's a different list I found recently, they vary because it's experimental values http://www.webassign.net/mcqpchem1/16-table-07.png my equation is still in agreement with this list to within 50 K. Helium is 9 K off, neon is 7 K off, argon is 23 K off, Krypton is 27 K off and xenon is 40 K off. His shows that it follows group trends seeming to get more accurate as you go up the group. How can a fluke follow group trends? Clearly it must be utilizing some property of the molecules.
>>8125045
Yeah that's already been dumped.

>>8123594
>So you've given up trying to prove it doesn't work and are now attacking the accuracy?
It has already been disproved and you acknowledge that. Now, you are holding up its "accuracy" as its one and only virtue when, since it returns negative values, it is inifnitely far from the correct value. Since you start with an inverted population, it is unsurprising.

>Post an equation for Boyle temperature and triple point that's more accurate than mine.
Pick anyone that returns a positive temperature. That one is infinitely more accurate than yours.

> I said very clearly that I ditched half of the theory due to /sci/ criticism.
You should ditch the other half to for the reasons stated. At this point, you are clinging to a result that is terribly inaccurate while asserting that it must be accurate because you can, essentially, ignore the part that makes it inaccurate. This is either blatant dishonesty or complete ignorance of what you are attempting to describe.

>>8126245
>it is still in agreement to within 50 K (fucking 10~30% error)
>how can it be a fluke? HOW?

>>8126245
>epsilon is an energy not a length
>he thinks distance means length

either go back to colllege or stop doing anything related to science, for fuck's sake

>>8126376
>Pick anyone that returns a positive temperature. That one is infinitely more accurate than yours.
Savage

>>8104640
hi OP I figured out a better equation here:

Critical Temperature = 0K

as you will see this is about 50% closer to real values than yours
for example:

Argon:
Theoretical: 161.4K
Mine: 0K
Yours: -150.7K

someone in tumblr said I should publish, hehe, you better wish we don't try to publish in the same journal :)

File: Screenshot from 2016-06-06 18-25-39.png (315KB, 1032x662px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1032x662px

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01886380

Have fun OP.

>>8126419
You are being far to generous to OP as the negative absolute temperature scale does not match the positive absolute temperature scale at 0K since at 0K on the negative scale, all atoms are in the highest excited state while at 0K on the positive scale, all atoms are in the ground state. The two scales meet at [math]\pm\infty[/math] since there all states are equally occupied.

>>8126405
Thats for some gases you mongoloid. Others are within 10 K. Also considering that the van der Waals expression for Boyle temperature is no better yet is considered correct.. There's clearly a correlation between L-J parameter and Boyle or critical temperature
>>8126408
>>8126419
>>8126414
Lmao you guys are the worst neckbeards that I've ever come across. Butthurt is off the charts. I know you know that the equation works but are pretending it doesn't just to get at me. Why, I'm not sure but I think it probably has something to do with that crushing feeling of being outshone by a dropout.
>>8126423
Wow thank you, These values are so hard to find. Cheers. I'll use it to help me develop my theory further, find trends by interaction type molecule size etc.
I'm gonna go to some other less autistic forums and discuss it there. Enjoy your asspain /sci/!

>>8126470
>There's clearly a correlation between L-J parameter and Boyle or critical temperature
Again, where do you think the L-J parameters come from?

>>8126470
Goodbye!

>KingChem sends an article to a peer-reviewed journal
>journal rejects it, reviewer explains why
>What an idiot, doesn't he see my formula clearly works?
>I already explained why my temperatures are negative
This will never end. Good luck anyway.

>>8126470
you're finally fucking off? please kill yourself while youre at it

>>8126533
I sincerely hope he sends his "equation" in to several journals and gets rejected by all of them only to come back to /sci/ and tell us how experts in their fields don't know shit.

>>8126470
>Wow thank you, These values are so hard to find. Cheers. I'll use it to help me develop my theory further, find trends by interaction type molecule size etc.

So you're going to tune your 'theory' depending on the results it gives?
>science

>>8126470
you will stop using a tripcode and people will stop shitting on you as much. this isnt because people hate tripcodes, it's because retards are much, much easier to spot that way
just quit posting altogether

>>8126547
why so much anger against the guy? even if it's a sketchy theory with ballpark predictions it's still extremely impressive for an amateur to have come up with it. gases are notoriously difficult to model even using curve fitting methods because there are so many different sizes and forces between the molecules. he's somehow boiled all of that down to a simple linear relationship that seems to hold for most gases. better than all the amateur cosmology theories that i've seen on here at any rate

>>8126581
>totally not op
it's not impressive to fuck up some numbers until something seems to work sometimes

someone who never took and never bothered to learn anything isnt an amateur, he's a lazy fuck writing nonsense

>>8126554
OP is kinda right that you guys are salty. There is no other reason to want a paper to be rejected. I've seen this in the string theory vs LQG debate where you have people like Lubos Motl attacking LQG work so angrily you have to wonder if LQG is even wrong or he's really worried that it will invalidate his own research.
>>8126581
It is really trivial though, all he did was sub one equation into another.

>>8126605
>a paper
are you blind

>>8126605
Lol you think the way OP acted towards the entire thread would fly in an academic setting?

>>8126605
LQG makes way more sense, I have no idea why string theory is more popular with it's 11 dimension fuckery

>>8126614
As I said this thread strongly reminds me of ST vs LQG debates so no it's not unusual to get emotional about your work.

>>8126624
>work
literally no one on /sci/ works on these topics
without exception it's freshmen dropouts, HS students and liberal arts majors

>>8126470
>some other forums
this isn't a forum senpai

>>8126470
The other forums will tell you the same things OP. You had ONE person on stack exchange, who couldn't even follow your steps, tell you to publish. Hell, you already were denied by one physical chemistry journal who said your assumptions were baseless. Maybe it's time to actually listen to some of your critics and check your derivation. The other forums will grill you even harder because they probably know better than some of the people replying to you thread.

>>8104640
Not sure how late I am to the party, but I can see why no one was interested. Your results are very good over certain other approaches that you will encounter in undergraduate chemistry. From a stat. mech perspective however, your results are not very good at all. The biggest thing your method has going for it, is that it is relatively simple.

To reiterate, yes, your method is very good taking into account simplicity, but with a pocket calculator and a periodic table (plus 1 or 2 constants), your average p. chemist could work out these values far more accurately, at the expense of having to deal with rather complicated equations.

I do not mean to disparrage your results, but really, it would be roughly equivalent to developing a simplified way to take the derivative of a trig function. Useful in a sense, but more of a novelty than anything.

>>8126675
To clarify, I mean simplicity of computation, I am not sure about the derivation or anything like that

>>8104640
Reading more closely, you do seem to discuss statistical mechanics... in a way. Really, this smacks of someone who does not fully understand their subject. I would be happy to read the full paper, but there are quite a few sections that raise red flags.

>>8116139
>not involved in Chemistry
>put a trip called KingChem

>>8126581
He is arrogance incarnate. 4chan does not tolerate large egos.

>>8126675
I am the guy who said some anons are salty for wishing it doesn't get published. I was thinking the same thing, even if it's legit this theory is not useful to serious chemistry but if it works it's a cool simple novelty, why all the clamor to suppress it? These things are good to know. These little rough "mini results" they are sometimes useful for simplifying an equation
>>8126692
He claims to have only done freshman stat mech. This is evident in his paper, he plugged 'n chugged the Boltzmann distribution and that was it really.
>>8126674
I saw his link to stack exchange. Stack exchange asked him a few questions, he replied, one user got excited and then the comments died. Maybe OP is still talking with this user privately I don't know but what I can see is that nobody was hostile. I use physics stack exchange and I can tell you if a question is bullshit you will be told. I assume the same for chemistry stack exchange. I've seen much stupider things posted on /sci/ that didn't get such a vicious response so I can only assume that some anons ITT have a personal vendetta with OP for whatever reason.

>>8126419
ok i fucking lold 10/10

>>8126815
It's sad really, at first OP did seem like a cool guy, but then his "skills" went over his head.

>>8129761
I think OP buggered off, so for what purpose did you bump this?

>>8129768
I thought it would be funny... it wasnt that funny. Ill stop

>>8105081
>All other models of real gases are just curve fits.
No they aren't

>>8110956
ln(4)-ln(3) = ln(4/3)

Why change between equations

>>8130702
> Boyle's Law
> Charles' Law
> Gay-Lussac's Law
> Avogadro's Law
> not curve fits
aaay lmao

tl;dr

anon accidently gets lucky with mathematical diarrhea which is only true in a couple cases and proceeds to get really cocky thinking he is a genius for doing so