Can one of you gents or ladies explain to me what this 3 lined

Two triple bonded carbons.
Go back to OChem day 1

>>8129912
it's a triple bond between two carbons, you brainlet
from left to right:

CH3 - CH2 - CH = CH - CH2 - C ≡ CH

>>8129912
fuck you

File: 1f22_050.jpg (10KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 320x240px

>>8129920
Fair enough. I was always taught a carbon atom was represented by a point or a bend, neither of which are shown in the triple bond, so go kiss your dad.

>>8129933
Triple bonded carbons are linear.

>>8129912
>gents or ladies

If you are going to go through the cucktism of including both genders instead of just saying 'guys' or 'faggots' then just use non-gendered terminology. Like 'Can you people explain...'.

Seriously when people try to be inclusive to women by prolonging their sentences it just makes me puke. I just got used to not using gendered terms a long time ago, do the same you fucking cuck.

File: orbital-structure-of-alkyne.png (202KB, 903x513px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 903x513px

c'mon honey bend my orbital structure

>>8129964
You must have a triple bond. Cause you're alkynes of retarded.

>>8129933
It's a linear bond because the carbons are so closely bonded that other angle besides 180° would be too stressful on the structure.

>>8129976
I'm a math major so I don't understand what the fuck you are talking about.

Also, on highschool chemistry we denoted triple bonds by having the second line on top of the first line that would usually denote a double bond.

This must be some hipster new age chemistry, but what would I know. It is all but memories now.

File: Gordon.jpg (11KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 460x276px

>>8129976
>Cause you're alkynes of retarded.
I can't believe I haven't heard this before

>>8129976
>Cause you're alkynes of retarded.

bravo

>>8129976
Kek

>>8129976
thanks for the hearty kek

>>8129982
>I'm a math major
that's painfully obvious

>>8129976

Well fucking played sir. When this becomes a /sci/ meme, I'll remember I read it here first.

>>8129976
Top kek. Well done.

>/sci/ does my homework again

>>8129982
>I'm a math major so I don't understand what the fuck you are talking about.
If you don't understand what you're hearing, keep listening, don't squeeze the trigger and tell all chemists they're doing it wrong.

File: Applause.gif (349KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 480x360px

>>8129976
>you're alkynes of retarded
FOOKING AYY

>>8129976
gg, good sir.

File: image.jpg (51KB, 592x386px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 592x386px

>>8129976

>>8129976
Hhoooeeee mah gahhh gurl
I'm using this one for sure

>>8129982
good thing you didnt major in chem then lmao

>>8129977
How do you distinguish between 0 degrees and 180 degrees, and why did you choose to use the latter here?

>>8133005
If a bond angle were 0°, two carbon atoms would be occupying the same space.

>>8129977
>would be too stressful on the structure
Are all chemists retarded?

>>8133028
Wait, wait.

In mathematics, 0 degrees is EXACTLY the same as 180 degrees (i.e. indistinguishable). What is the definition of a degree in chemistry?

Also, two points can lie along a line with 0 (or 180) degrees between them; that doesn't mean that the two points occupy the same space; why and how does it mean that in chemistry?

>>8133135
you're drunk.
did you mean 0 and 360? (and they still aren't the same unless you mean modulo 360)

>>8133152
Of course I was thinking of 360 degrees, excuse my brain fart.

However, a 360 degree rotation and a 0 degree rotation surely produce identical results, no?

Also, does it even make sense to talk about bond angles for 2-atom compounds?

>>8133169
> However, a 360 degree rotation and a 0 degree rotation surely produce identical results, no?
yeah for bond angles. but there's uses for angles >360 degrees. Tony Hawk could tell you that.
From what I remember (from Mat Sci not chem) bond angles go from (0,180], because a bond angle of 270 is equivalent to 90.

>>8133191
Can you give me an example of a compound with 0 degree angles?

>>8133199
I was trying to say non-inclusive 0...but I can't even think of bond angles close to 0.

>>8129977
What? No, it's because the orbital structure is such that a linear angle is preferred. It has nothing to do with how close the two carbons are to each other... see >>8129972 for more clarification.

>>8133046
uhm... steric and bond angle stress is a very real thing... sure exceptions exist but the general trends are pretty consistent

>>8129976
HOW HAVE I NEVER HEARD THIS ONE

>>8129976
very, very good post

File: 1441576223513.gif (2MB, 158x158px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 158x158px

>>8129976
This is why I keep coming to this shithole.

File: 1458993578420.jpg (316KB, 1236x1420px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1236x1420px

>>8129976
Literally the best post I've seen.

>>8133046
mfw you have never seen cyclopropane

File: 1381252828936.gif (2MB, 240x192px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 240x192px

>>8129976
oh so good

the chemical was cold so its mom made it wear a sweater

>>8129928
Isn't the triple bond connected only to the hydrogen and not a CH group? I haven't had org chem in years.

>>8136625
> 3 bonds
> one H

>>8136626
insane in the borane

>>8136626
V A L E N C E
A
L
E
N
C
E

>>8129976
im only 20 iq pts behind a man (einstein) who debunked the majority of physics by thinking about trains. And seeing as physics deals with true complexity and other science do not, its even more reasonable for a 140 to be able to trash your kind than it was for a 160 to trash physics ;)
if ur iq was above 140 u wouldnt be as butthurt about the concept of a 140 hyp grad lurking this beta barn..
so the logical conclusion is that ur iq is lower than 140 (possibly much lower)
if you met me in real life you would instantly be blown into a world where all that mattered was getting me to acknowledge your existence and even hopefully be your friend... But i would probably find you to be a desperately uninteresting person and want you to exit my awareness as fast as possible.
the fact that i dont lie about my iq is what gives me the edge necessary to call you an inferior little girl who couldnt understand basic physics, and BE RIGHT ABOUT IT.
honestly if i woke up one morning and for some reason my thinking capacity had devolved to your level, it would take me less than 5 min to run to the kitchen and slit my throat...
maybe your going to tell me u work at goldman..
but ud still be way inferior, as is anybody who projects their iq to be higher than it is..