>chemistry class >it's actually just dimensional analysis

>/sci/ thread
>its actually just a brainlet shitpost

>>8538364
>brainlet shitpost
>it's actually just a simulation

Given that the overwhelming majority of chemistry and catalysis is subject to the law of conservation of mass, dimensional analysis (and by extension stoichiometry) are the foundation of the field. Do you really expect an introductory survey course to teach you cool reactions without first providing the prerequisite knowledge needed to understand them?

>>8539366

This my nigga.

Knowing all those fancy organic reaction mechanisms doesn't help you know how much you can expect to get out of a reaction. Stoichiometry is the foundation.

>>8539431
Naw, because an organic mechanism in principle demonstrates where atoms come from in new chemical linkages or, alternatively, where atoms go when bonds are broken. Good mechanisms are wholly consistent with mass balance.

By "understand" a reaction, I mean that in many number of ways. Take energetics: you can't derive the thermodynamics of a reaction without having a balanced equation, nor can you describe how much energy is released/consumed without dimensional analysis. Without being able to know reaction thermodynamics, it's impossible to understand reaction equilibria which is a significant problem if you want to understand how to manipulate chemical reactions (e.g., why a huge excess of one reagent will work, why adding more catalyst won't fix an unfavorable equilibrium, when acid/base chemistry will work). You absolutely need to understand dimensional analysis to understand any of these things meaningfully.