Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #652306

Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
<news:6lk5eb1n7kcteef3bhs6d63k51hj78am1r@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> I think fakey really does know.
> Why is he so afraid of saying it?
> 
> Hey, maybe if he holds his breath and turns blue, all the
> oxygen atoms in the universe will suddenly have a +8
> electronegativity.

*You* stupidly persist in k'laming me to think electronegativity 
is nuclear charge. I've never mentioned the nucleus in this 
discussion, you did. Because you don't realize you're yet again 
blathering on about something you know little about.

You're blathering on about nuclear charge without knowing you're 
actually blathering on about *effective* nuclear charge, which is 
different for different electron orbital shells.

You keep bleating about the number of protons in the nucleus as your 
kooky "nuclear charge" of 8, but it's not 8, in the 1s orbital it's 
7.658, in the 2s orbital it's 4.492, in the 2p orbital it's 4.453.

Because you didn't know the number of protons does *not* equal the 
effective nuclear charge of an atom.

Zeff = Z - S

Were you perhaps instead thinking of the atomic number, Moron?

Moron?...

SPNAK!

> I would be impressed.

Awww, I've let the moron bleat out his stupidity long enough... bend
over and ready yourself for Das Boot, Shiny Tinfoil Brain. LOL

Aren't you the moron who k'lames that elemental oxygen has a constant 
electronegativity?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity>
=================================================
As it is usually calculated, electronegativity is not a property of an 
atom alone, but rather a property of an atom in a molecule.[4]

The property of electronegativity of an atom in a molecule is 
different from the electrode potential of the element, which depends 
on the difference in free energy of the element in its standard state 
and in ionic solution, and it is different from the ionization 
potential of the atom, and from its electron affinity; although it is 
related to these properties in a general way.

It has been found possible to formulate an electronegativity scale of 
the elements by the analysis of the values of delta and delta_umlaut 
given by the single-bond energies. In Table 3-6 values of delta_umlaut 
are listed for the bonds between nonmetallic atoms whose energies are 
given in Table 3-4. These are obtained in the same ways as those in 
Table 3-3. It is seen on inspection that the values of delta_umlaut do 
not satisfy an additivity relation; they cannot be represented as 
differences of terms characteristic of the two atoms in a bond. 
However, the square roots of the delta_umlaut values do satisfy 
approximately a relation of this sort.

The method just described for formulating the electronegativity scale 
cannot be used for the remaining elements in general because of a lack 
of knowledge of enthalpies of formation of their compounds as gases 
and of the values of single-bond energies for the elements themselves.

Except for nitrogen and oxygen, which are discussed below, the 
elements in their standard states do not differ much in energy from 
states involving normal single covalent bonds between the atoms.

It is the unusual stability of multiple bonds for oxygen and nitrogen, 
stabilizing their normal states, that often leads to negative values 
of the enthalpy of formation of substances.

By the use of Equation 3-13 the difference in electronegativity of two 
elements can be calculated from the enthalpy of formation of the 
compounds formed by them.

Table 3-8: The values given in the table refer to the common oxidation 
states of the elements. For some elements variation of the 
electronegativity with oxidation number is observed.

[4] Pauling, Linus (1960). Nature of the Chemical Bond. Cornell 
University Press. pp. 88–107. ISBN 0-8014-0333-2.
=================================================

How do you oxidize *oxygen* except with fluorine to figure out its 
enthalpy of formation and thus its exact electronegativity, you 
fecking *moron*? *No* *one* wants to formulate FOOF (O2F2) to find out 
the exact oxidation state of elemental oxygen. You know, FOOF, 
Lucifer's Gas? That shit makes *ice* explode. It makes asbestos 
*burn*. It reacts with gold. Hit it with a CO2 fire extinguisher, you 
just make it mad.

So... your bleating about oxygen's electronegativity means you're 
bleating about an approximation, Moron. Even Pauling himself admitted 
that elemental electronegativity is an approximation, and thus isn't 
all that accurate, which is why he only presented them with single 
decimal accuracy. Moron.

Further, oxygen's affinity for itself in forming multiple bonds means 
that for a lot of substances, the enthalpy of formation is negative, 
thus the electronegativity is dependent upon which substance oxygen is 
interacting with and whatever other factors contribute to or detract 
from that interaction.

Nitrogen is the same way, nitrogen trichloride isn't unstable because 
of weak N-Cl bonds, but rather because nitrogen is constantly trying 
to reform into triple-bonded N2, with a negative enthalpy of formation 
and thus exothermic reaction of nitrogen trichloride.

You know, Linus Pauling... the guy who developed the first accurate 
electronegativity scale for molecules... you think *he* might know a 
bit more about electronegativity than a moronic bleatfarting retard 
like you, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL

SPNAK!

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?

<snicker>

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*);

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L;

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering;

What a positive or negative vector is;

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

That nuclear charge does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

Back to alt.usenet.kooks | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-11 05:42 -0500
  Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 22:16 +0800
    Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 15:06 +0000
      Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-12 00:47 +0800
    Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:54 +0100
      Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-13 16:01 +0800
        Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:12 +0100
          Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-14 14:35 +0800
            Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 16:03 +0100
      Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-13 03:09 -0600
  Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Chicken F*cker DOW #4 <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-12 03:52 +0000
    Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-12 15:46 +0800
      Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Chicken F*cker DOW #4 <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-12 08:19 +0000
        Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-12 16:33 +0800
          Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Chicken F*cker DOW #4 <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-12 08:53 +0000
            Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-12 17:12 +0800
              Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Chicken F*cker DOW #4 <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-12 09:16 +0000
                Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-13 16:53 +0800
                Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-13 03:18 -0600
                Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Psychotic Chicken <Bill@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-15 10:18 +0000
  he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 01:34 +0100
    Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2016-03-21 17:52 -0700
      Re: he doesn't even know the electronegativity of oxygen "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 18:06 -0700

csiph-web