Re 4? yes ... DEMOCRATS - foreign agents funded by fairfax county va, dc niggers, UK, CHINA, GERMANY MEXICO have METHODICALLY ATTACKED EVERY ARTICLE POSTED

which show foreign tempering which attacks AMERICAN CHEMISTRY STUDENTS (also encouraging women heavily to do medical) **. really it exposed hacks at first but it's now clear this has become "a devil seed like ubuntu which is just starting to show red areas on the skin, and will keep growing and killing" with more hacks funded by biden upon USA

Re: Re 2: OpenStax and Libre Texts - USA money spent, CHINA gets free: result - OBSTRUCTIVE EDU BOOKS by democrat assholes

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/4123963/4123964.html#msg-4123964

Re 2: OpenStax and Libre Texts - USA money spent, CHINA gets free: result - OBSTRUCTIVE EDU BOOKS by democrat assholes

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/4123963/4123964.html#msg-4123964

Re 3: OpenStax and Libre Texts - USA money spent, CHINA gets free: result - OBSTRUCTIVE EDU BOOKS by democrat assholes

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/4123975/4123975.html#msg-4123975

Re: OpenStax and Libre Texts - USA money spent, CHINA gets free: result - OBSTRUCTIVE EDU BOOKS by democrat assholes

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/4123055/4123958.html#msg-4123958

Re: T/F: Identifying "stereo" CIS TRANS carbons in a molecule is an important skill for chemists

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/4131677/4131788.html#msg-4131788

Re: math versus chemistry

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/4132050/4134627.html#msg-4134627

** ie, fabric industry and so on - and who needs bras that don't fall off and smell anyhow. chinese bra are free under obama)

NOT IN THE ABOVE: an essay "available online" on an insidious virus BYU ch 37 openstax ch 5 around Hess's law. it cites exact evidence of a math problem exploding on students who "try to understand" and exactly how the to solve it. it then shows a next problem is "simply impossible to reasonably do" for a student who "wants to learn how it works" due to reverse-engineered choices. it involves "factorial possibility", "process choices out of order by problem", "recursive issues", and DEPENDENCY ORDERING that only a chemist with a lab could escape (mathematically the problem is VERY UGLY and the students not prepared for such a thing). THE PROBLEM FORCES THAT YOU ADD LIKE A MICROSOFT SPREAD SHEET OR DIE, if you try to "learn it" (how to make the list to add, which btw is supposedly what the whole point it) it explodes - you'd never solve it and maybe fail out trying having wasted time - and never know why. if you "just add what they gave you", you live. then you have to pay to take the course again - or a UK kid who hacked YOUR book gets YOUR job who learned from a Princeton book (uk based) that WASN'T HACKED.

^^ ALL OF THE ABOVE PAGES CONTAIN JAPANESE IMAGES WHICH BREAK WEB BROWSERS AND CAN CAUSE YOUR COMPUTER TO FREEZE. THEY WERE PUT IN BY G2 who is payed by fairfaxcounty democrats to continually attack truth on the web

^^ GERMAN-SS uses USA's money (mozilla in California is 501c and led by a ring of little nazzi brats to attack usa on instructions from .de .cn .uk) IS WHY YOUR WEB BROWSER DOES THAT. (before they hacked it there was no such problem)

byu 25.3 Solubility

"add sugar to a glass of water" (mexico loves this - it's their product and it causes diabetes in the USA)

"The solubility of a solute in a particular solvent is the maximum concentration that may be achieved under given conditions when the dissolution process is at equilibrium."

THAT'S A DEVIL WIKIPEDIA FAKE DEFINITION TO FUCK UP USA STUDENTS IN THE HEAD

reaction equilibrium is about reactions that go "both ways continually"

(it is true that all reactoins do this to a very small degree, but it fucks students in the head to confuse the two - solubility and reaction equilibrium. they are absolutely not the same)

NOW YOU'LL SAY ... WELL anything same is at equilibrium

I'LL SAY. NOPE. they continually use 'equilibrium' in the chapter building a case around it that 'measurement of equilibrium is solubility'

IT MIS-DEFINES AND CONFUSES WITH chemical reactants under equilibrium (which isn't about solubility btw)

IT MIS-DEFINES also by confusing "solute solvent" with "chemical reaction". things that are solvated do not necessarily REACT.

^^ they KNOW 'equilibrium' is coming up in the next chapter with a definition specific to chemistry NOT TO BE CONFUSED with the math/phy definition

IT IS DONE TO CONFUSE AND MIS-DIRECT. no "reasonable author" would do it.

ANY GOOD MATH BOOK WOULD PRINT A STERN WARNING IF A WORD IN ONE CHAPTER WAS USED DIFFERENTLY IN THE NEXT, such as "ODE" books using the word `homogenous', every book ever seen warns about the difference of usage

OTHER CHEMISTRY BOOKS do not use the word "at equilibrium" meaning "homogenous and equal to ability to add more solute". also in the chemical equilibrium chapter, they use different marking to lasso off (so as not to confuse) for solutions; which can only be done AFTER the other discussion becaues it uses EQUATOINS borrowed only explainable after the reversible reqction process. (and the numbers very small - it's reason of use gets into shifting equilibrium, and also proofs of whether we can say things "go to completion" for later work). in other words - you still don't want 'chemical equilibrium' bandied about as 'any kind of equilibrium' because the definitions conflict (to a point of completion conflict).

OTHER CHEMISTRY BOOKS do not use the word in the "solutions and or solubulity chapter", because it's not needed and would require warnings

I DID NOT FIND ATTACKS, just a little muddling, in openstax CH7 CH8, believ it or not.

It's a nasty subject that confuses MTH and PHY experts and can't really be done without balloons.

If you need help ask someone who passed the subject. It's not bad though slighly confusing explination at times. Allot to remember is all, 5 different ways to get one thing and all.

^^ i have a theory on that, the hackers don't know how to attack that part yet (except on wikipedia which is thoroughly attacked by doctors of viral attacks on other nations), which is why the chapters/sections are still clean of attacks

LEFT, CH7: the cheese is at equilibrium

RIGHT, CH8: thinks equilibrium was already settled

TITLE THIS PHOTO

that's right, if you use imported chinese mouse trap requiring lithium batteries, your dinner will taste better! don't worry about price trade deficit or plausible failure with disease mice running around (note: chemical tenderizers not included)

in an essay about BYU's openstax there is mention about "continual pushing toward nursing" and how that's A HUGE MISTAKE FOR USA ECONOMY, to have a meca of nursing as a center of a city that MAKES NO PRODUCT and has rampant inflation and $250,000 toyota "luxury vehicles" since 'china has your ass' and now is a tape worm in the medical industry as well: china and germany making most instruments, really just china

not chlorine safe ??!!

FOR A BOOK THAT TALKS ALLOT ABOUT CHLORINE and MEDICINE, IT NEVER MENTIONS THAT IT'S A GREAT ANTI-SEPTIC, WHICH IS WHY AMERICANS USE IT IN LAUNDRY

DO NOT WITH BOSH

NOT WITH BOSH SAMSUNG

WHEN YOU BUY ONE, or your old white parents do, they find out AFTER PURCHASE THAT "chlorine damages the machine and can't be used"

WHAT A FUCKING COINCIDENCE, BECAUSE CHLORINE PRODUCTS ARE A FORTE OF USA INDUSTRIES NOT GERMANY OR CHINA

you really fucking think the germans, crazy about chemistry and poisoning people, don't know how to make a rubber seal chlorine safe? obviously they do.

LOOK AT THE UNDERWEAR AGAIN

FABRIC CHEM GIANT OF WORLD

NYC HAS EVERY PATENT THAT FUCKING MATTERS FOR SYNTHETIC CLOTHING

CLOTHING THAT DOESN'T STINK WHEN WORN

CLOTHING THAT DOESN'T DISINTEGRATE WHEN CLOROX IS USED TO MAKE IT MORE HYGENIC



NOT ONLY DOES CHINA REFUSE to double stitch or use the right fabric to protect women - they've militarized bras to make them a financial burnden on women and stink and arent' chlorine safe LIKE THEY USED TO BE

IT'S NOT that we don't know how or it isn't just as cheap. it's about china strong arm tactics and killing americans with deception.

(CIF for the partly font blind due to uk hacking, ClF if you can see it from C1F - on ubuntu and microsof Edge (which is ubuntu in hiding))

what a fucking coincidence openstax talks smack about woke women suing USA companies and everyone needs to be a nurse pushing german experimental mengola poisons

BUT NEVER MENSIONS FABRIC AND HYGENE when the opportunity arrises

becasue USA is Clorox king, and germany china hate anything that makes USA money

so to justify my comment 'about that mouse trap'

in solubility we talk about % composition of solutions (but NOT if all reactans went to completion or how - for reasons is why) (equations covered earlier actually re-applied)

% composition is a set of simple equations

in a CHEMICAL EQUILIBRIUM CHAPTER we being discussing reversible reactions which are in dynamic equilibrium

THAT EQUATION IS special, where exponent of each reactants must be chosen by balancing rules:

product of Products
--------------------
product of Reactants

NOW - no intent of posting all that.


throughout this chapter it would be very difficult to keep saying "reversible chemical reaction with steady state dynamic equilibrium"


YOU GUESSED IT; THE CHAPTER CALLS IT 'CHEMICAL EQUILIBRIUM' FOR SHORT

that's why you can't confuse the terms. the equations are different and the meaning is also totally different. if you think CH8's equilibrium must be like CH7 becaues 'you already got told', the mouse trap will snap on you. you will be reading that chapter twice or three not once i imagine

another problem with OPENSTAX is solubility is mentioned in FOUR OR FIVE SEPARATE CHAPTERS, each time the same way but different focus.

(another chemistry book only does it 2x)

WHY IS OPENSTAX is composed of stolen material from usa and uk publishers.

(i said end game is UK forces USA to fund this book and be in USA schools bothering students and getting free edits from teachers which, unless a hack, will be denied since UK .DE .CN are 'controlling who gets in book', THEN AFTER STEALING SHIT, they maneuver that OPENSTAX can't be used in schools "due to disinvormation" they put in. BUT THAT THAT TIME USA PUBLISHERS AND PRINTERS ARE DEAD WHICH IS THEIR PLAN. THEN PRINCETON prints the uk-corrupted version in china to usa while using a different version in UK an CHINA - which USA won't realize because there are so many lies in the media)


this is why there are so many books that appear merely re-ordered

it's because they are stealing shit and using Hillary laws to avoid prosecution

they even sell these stolen books to the BIDEN LIBRARY OF CONGRESS who buys it knowing they're stolen from usa


AS A RESULT, the student gets 'solutions' in 5 chapters not 2, because they are avoiding fraud charges. (why idk - because biden certainly won't prosecute them - but Trump would)

[ PICTURE OF MANSION JOE'S TRANS WONDER BACKYARD POOL ]

Figure 3.1 The water in a swimming pool is a complex mixture of substances whose relative amounts must be
carefully maintained to ensure the health and comfort of people using the pool. (credit: modification of work by Vic
Brincat)

THAT'S A LIE, the complex mixures are less safe and cheaper and from foreign countries

the mixture is just a few things to be safe and most enjoyable: but the proportions do need to be balance

openstax ch4 'on solubility' NEVER MENTIONS how to analyze whether or not a reaction occurs

it talks about precipitatoin (ok), gives a cheap table (not ok), then steers straight off topic with "X ray flourescent pigment and rockets"

BEFORE STUDYING REACTION RATES - it'd be nice if the book ever mentioned ... WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN DETERMINE IF A REACTION OCCURED

PUBLIC NOTICE - THIS IS A CHINESE LIE

solutions of soluble ionic compounds are mixed together. One merely needs to identify all the ions present in the solution and then consider if possible cation/anion pairing could result in an insoluble compound.
following that advice literally will definitely have wrong answers attached (signed mr. math). could? possible?? meh.

the fact is we only are interested if a precipitate IN THE PRODUCTS formed NOT THE SOLUTION. one in the reactants may be a spectator don't bother asking anything on the left period - only the products on right.

ANOTHER PROBLEM, same problem, is here in CH4 we can't determine what products form: we have to be told if gasses were formed, if electrolytes were not formed etc. THAT CANT' BE DONE IN CH4. it has to be told to the student not hidden under a rock; that they don't know it all yet.

WHAT CAN WE DO:

(1) describe if KNOWN GOOD PRODUCTS (non-imaginary) have a reaction that occurred, given a good equation

(2) given an an equation WITH IMAGINARY product say IF THAT DID NOT OCCUR, rule out something, yet not say if other combos were plausible

WE COULD BUT SHOULDN'T "pair all factorial combo of reactants" and say "if any precipitate is possible, some reaction will occur". why is because there may be more than one possible way to arrange the right: and in CH4 what is and isn't possible IS NOT KNOWABLE in CH4 (if ever!). in CH4 you have to be told

NOTE: 'possible' never mentioned again, 'could' is suspcious, and 'solution' can be before or after reactions occur both (that's usage in other chem books not my opinion)

so we hit CH 11 (reaction RATES), having 5 solubility "sections" previous, never having a guide if a reaction occurred?

should i be checking reaction rates of things i don't know if reacted? i mean. idk.

I DON'T LIKE IT. if you learn a bunch of "mostly true not really true" and in 5 other sections they teach a new truth

COME FINAL EXAM TIME YOU ARE GOING TO BE ONE



very confused puppy about what to remember about an question that doesn't say what chapter to use

actually my 2nd complaint on same (above URL has a quicker one)

ch4 openstax "calculate oxidation number" is particularly hideous

* it gives p.190 only a partial list, only 1/2, of the well know summary of oxidation table

* it shows no oxidation table most books would have - not even in appendix (these show elements, polyatomic ions, and neutral molecules are show by name depending on naming system)

* it doesn't mention multiple oxidation states but they exist

(HINT: they don't say so but elements may have multiple oxidation numbers, and there are common poly ion oxi number table of common ones though other exist, and a molecules name shows oxidation by it's formula: so isn't used at all, unless di, tri, and so on are used instead of numbers).

the book it totally deceptive it says the goal is overal oxidatoin or reduction of product then conflicts itself. the fact is you can't make these up - you have to be given ones that are known good. but the book "gives ions forms" without mentioning why which is WRONG. in the end your counting ions given or lost by each: but were given rules that, later in book, are learned to be WRONG. (meaning you must be given a correct molecule name to begin with, if it's incorrect there's NO WAY you'd know it in ch4)

(b) it's example has you do SO3^2-, tells you answer is 4+ not (VI). it doesnt' tell you SO3^2- has no ^2- unless ionized (sulfite), which would account for the ^2- difference (SO3 exists as neutral and is named differently). we weren't told "give oxidation relative to up and coming reaction and last one added", it's absurd to 'just throw spaghetti'. a ^2- ion is (II) quite clearly - by the whole molecule. SO3 is (III) in other chem books, with O=-2 that's VI+2=4. you then say ? ^2- per O ? and i say: that requires parenthesis (O^2-)3 or (O3)^2- unless you've named a polyatomic ion (sulfite) giving net charge in table. in other books for something like PO4 your given (3-) (you don't find it it's in the table) and why is because there are multiple possibles one is more likely which the student has no way to determine which is "more common". other chem books only show neutral numbers: like SO3 when asking for naming; oxidation of parts is given, and naming covers oxidation of correct neutral formula given.

wait did i say (VI) or (III). exactly. oxidation meant III oxygen. the "new method" counts electrons gained lost so it's VI, but III is used in naming. (this changes nothing above btw, the conventions to be wary of)

this is a process of "confuse and dis-orient" - to lie about things - to add not discussed, no table, and without warning. also with no clear goal. (infact free electrons we'll find in later CH r not so easily counted). but it never flat out says "electrons lost to O", it hides what it's doing with "comparative to oxidation" dressing. to O? to S? to both? what is the goal is definitely the question when we check other books and see "SO3 is plainly (III) by UIPAC".

* the equations are all mangled a math teacher WOULD NOT ALLOW THESE ON A CHALK BOARD, would immediately erase it. i guarantee it.

this clearly shows china germany uk intently creating circular logic to hold back students: like 0=-2=..., is obviously never true and circular. saying oxidation then counting something else. then throwing spaghetti and having incorrect answers in book.

(c) it then shows S04 has the same equation as S03, but that's a lie, read carefully theres a (-2) put in by a text mention further above Na+! also i doubt Na2 gas as seen: likely 2Na is true. just awful.

(*d) forces "giving oxidation of underlines P of H2PO4^-"

other book: "The most important oxidation numbers for phosphorus are -3, +3, and +5 (see table)"

the PROBLEM here is that there are multiple possible oxidation numbers. you can't just "pick what seems right" but that's which this section was teaching students to do. is to be unaware that "ions don't grow on trees" and underlying bond structure not yet discussed causes table of oxidation to have surprises (ie don't guess)

BEING TAUGHT 'JUST ADD IONS TO CHANGE OXIDATION AND PICK WHICH ATOM GETS IT', IS COMPLETELY FALSE. YOU CAN'T DO THAT AND THEY KNOW IT. and that's before we talk about "circle jerking the students" with 0=-2

now look back on CH4 p. 190 what if i say, "hey, count electrons given or lost i'll give you a correct table and won't give you any bad formula or names" and those will be written in the question because i have to show you the formula to ask! wouldn't that be simple. of course it would: that's what other books do. what if i said "give me only total ionization of molecule but i give you that in table since i know you can't". easy again. anything else is a circle jerk for ch4.

infact in the other book it's all about properly naming, like Pb2OH2 is Lead II hydroxide. it's not even about "pushing 0=-2 equations". infact OPENSTAX skipped that by "be-littling" that in a CH2.7 and having meaningless small table. don't know what to call it but i can count it wrong. and they deleted valuable tables CH4.2 (2.7 has a very small one). what else? balancing chemical equation is in CH4.1 and it's THE SAME AS OXIDATION. this is usually in like CH2 or CH3 - but this book did nomeclature before balancing which is another wonder blunder. obviously if it's covered 3x before CH4.2 and was simple, why does 0=-2 circle jerk need to follow rules in CH4.2?? there we go - it doesn't.

just incredibly awful and the reason is circle jerking - attack on USA students

charge on H2S = 0 = (2 × +1) + (1 × x) = -2

i checked google for a meme - i honestly could not find even a joke equation which was so bad

uh, it's charge but we call it oxidation number, but then call it charge again after asking for oxidation number, circle jerk

charge on H2S = 0 = (2 × +1) + (1 × x)
x = 0 - (2 × +1) = -2

(see you have to do a double take to realize x X wtf is going on - becuaes they never discussed the left. meanwhile your being bamboozled this is somethign new when you've learned it an easier way 3x before in the book)

little red riding hood

Under appropriate conditions, the attractions between all gas molecules will cause them to form liquids or solids. This
is due to intermolecular forces, not intramolecular forces. Intramolecular forces are those within the molecule that keep
the molecule together, for example, the bonds between the atoms. Intermolecular forces are the attractions between
molecules, which determine many of the physical properties of a substance. Figure 27.4 illustrates these different
molecular forces. The strengths of these attractive forces vary widely, though usually the IMFs between small

IDIOT. say "the force between molecules" so there isn't an insidious self-defined confliction

THING IS THEY KNOW THAT - UK IS A FUCKING DEVIL

------------------------------------

Gaseous butane is compressed within the storage compartment of a disposable lighter, resulting in its condensation to
the liquid state. (credit: modification of work by "Sam-Cat"/Flickr)

IT'S A CHINESE COPY OF A USA BIC LIGHTER - BASTARDS

CH 10 is total bullfeathers, continually blaming "temporary and changing distributions" for "why liquids are liquids". (this beating around the bush does student no good and rises price of book and course)

Figure 27.9: WRONG. H20's boiling point WAS ALREADY COVERED earlier in book both by formal charge and by EN difference (polarity). this means we already know the reason

OSTX CONTINUALLY says like 10x it's temporary. but it isn't. water is permanently polarized and more than most things are - which is why it doesn't fit the "smooth curve" no matter what equation is used.

A SMOOTH EQUATION IS PRESENTED - but OSTx fails to mention it's "way off" (no good) for non-ideals. this is after they've already covered the topic of non-ideal !!

and the critical point for gas-liquid is also "taught incorrectly" HERE'S WHY

that Pressure-y v. Temperature-x graph is HIGHLY GENERAL it's different curves for each atom/compound

IT'S ALSO STATISTICAL - it is made assuming average speed and speeds differe widely. get to the 2nd critical you find a wide area where "either liquid or gas" BUT THAT'S WRONG. if you assume all exact speed exact pressure no deviation the line is straight as an arrow. it becomes "a box shape of unkown region" ONLY WHEN it's assumed the speeds vary and any may differ by enoughto be on either side of the line

openstax's coverage of lattice and crystals is awful. it's doesn't contain as much raw properties as a highschool / college review book - yet contains endless 3d graphics without stating anything new

they dig into this only enough to unvail "CCP lattice and ABBA (a uk hit)" which of course is a common theme in the book: pro-chinese. chinese products, usa a bitch nurse of china buying supplies using usa gov money, continual mind fucking where study should be

it pretends it's going to do some LATTICE equations THEN QUITS after just showing distance using highschool TRIG. (there are allot of lattice equations and many are useful the least useful of which is: the distance formula)

it then of course begins bragging about x-rays once again

THE OTHER LIE ABOUT the triple point graph is that GLASS HAS A WIDE MELTING POINT, but some have sharp ones. this is because bonds are "not all alike" and in a crytal (depeing on what kind) they are a mess that only roughly look like a lattice at a distance.

(this is another reason for 'super critical fluids' which aren't either super and aren't critical)

^^ you guessed it, ostx tells you about glasses AFTER hyping out the triple point graph

So - ostx gives you A WAY TO SMOOTH THE CURVE for boiling point of any element compound

P = A E^(dH/(RT))

(prolly somethign they cut&pasted from an ODE book not understanding WTF it was in the book for)

BUT THEY ALREADY ADMITTED (if you can remember their having so much impertinent babble) that IT DOESN'T WORK FOR WATER, and many others

i mention it because you definitely want data points not a smooth curve

the whole premise of quantum is that NOTHING IS SMOOTH due to plank's constant. for example



(ripped from a uk server, honestly, just to burn their ubuntu bandwidth those damn hackers)

THERE IS NO SMOOTH CURVE on anything. and the math that actually shows the wacky offset of points - that's way above college chemistry

(shut you pie hole, give me the data)

also particularly offensive is "sugar" (mexico africa) is mentioned thoroughly everwhere

THAT STUFF CONSUMERS KEEP TRYING TO AVOID THEY PUT IN HEINZ KETSUP

THAT ISN'T ACTUALLY METABOLIZED CORRECTLY AND CAUSES DIABETES

the little UK CHINA bastards actually say "sugar is the backbone of DNA outer ring", via crafty in-appropriate name mangling (the anti-thesis of learning nomenclature, a devil's book) ...

infact if i remember there are polypeptide dehydrating bonds which - if not hydrated regularly, dna die and cells die: it is certainly why we keep drinking water.

IT IS THE MARKETING VALUE THEY ARE SEEKING, TOO SEED THE POISON FALSE INFORMATION THAT OUR BODIES REQUIRE SUGAR AND SUGAR IS A FOOD SUSTENANCE. NEITHER IS TRUE. INFACT you can have a diet of "no added sugar and no fruit" and live a marvelous life: without any sweets

MELTING AND FREEZING (openstax)

(a) This beaker of ice has a temperature of -12.0 °C. (b) After 10 minutes the ice has absorbed enough heat from the air
to warm to 0 °C. A small amount has melted. (c) Thirty minutes later, the ice has absorbed more heat, but its
temperature is still 0 °C. The ice melts without changing its temperature. (d) Only after all the ice has melted does the
heat absorbed cause the temperature to increase to 22.2 °C. (credit: modification of work by Mark Ott)

this p. 542 article says what i've NEVER seen before: that phase transition does NOT require added heat

they've said transition is immediate but that the two states stay at the same temperature until all of it is heated (which is obviously true and untrue - it completely depends on the source of heat placement and placement of thermometer)

I'VE NEVER SEEN A BOOK DENY THAT EXTRA HEAT IS REQUIRED FOR PHASE TRANSITION but it doesn't surprise me it came in a UK+CHINA hack attack on USA

(they all say that heat is added, neither temperature or state changes, during the latent heat phase - which i have no choice but to believe being so prominent)

byu ch 31, openstax ch 4.3

intruduction example for balancing equations ...

(1 CO2 molecule × 2 O atoms/CO2 molecule ) + (2 H2 O molecules × 1 O atom/H2O ) = 4 O atoms

TO ANY ON-LOOKER, we "see H20" and 40 atoms, infact: its' 4 Oxygen atoms. it's also not a best first example.

it's pretty obvious the "first example" could be done allot less confusingly and 0 looks like O. nobody wouldn't notice that.

THIS IS TYPICAL OF UK WORK: INTENTLY MOCKING YOU WITH THEY ARE POWERFUL YOU ARE NOT, AND YOU must eat off the bottom of their shoes while they step on your neck

UK LOVES IT, they do this sick "you are crap i am elite mockery" in all things

ch 10 p. 572 "some GL game graphics make this great" (until you find out they didn't do their homework but are demanding you answer their questions)


"... cell is equal to two atomic radii, or one atomic diameter. A cubic unit cell contains only the parts of these atoms that are within it. Since an atom at a corner of a simple cubic unit cell is contained by a total of eight unit cells, only one-eighth of that atom is within a specific unit cell. And since each simple cubic unit cell has one atom at each of its eight "corners," there is 8 × 1 = 1 atom within one simple cubic unit cell"

In[439]:= 4/3 \[Pi] 4^3 // N

Out[439]= 268.083

In[437]:= (4 2)^3

Out[437]= 512

i suspected as much

it's contents is NOT one atom - that is no where near any equality

it's also not Bohr's equation for sphere to square (which was actually useful - that i haven't included)

it also CANNOT EVER be used to "determine the radiius of the atom in the middle" WHICH doesn't touch any plane of the box (as depicted in book). there isn't even room for an atom inside as depicted, as it turns out - that also i'm not going to cut&paste - i will only say the outer 8 cannot be fully touching then also have a same sized one inside: try it yourself. it won't fit.

simple cubic

left is deceptive because it was rendered with GL not a real raytracer, the right is clearly incorrect (body in center cubic - a wholey different formula)

(a) Two adjacent Po atoms contact each other, so the edge length of this cell is equal to two Po atomic radii: l = 2r

THE 2r is for BCC, not SC, and incorrect as to figure (b)

The volume of a Po unit cell can be found by. l^3

^^ this is what i was afriad of - they are suggesting but not saying the unit volume of the atom is 1/8 of the unit cell. rather, they are being convoluted to confuse students (they say 1 unit cell, but the cell is already unit, they infact were finding 8 volumes + allot of slag)

the right is clearly incorrect (body in center cubic - a wholey different formula)

i mean - as i said earlier the center ball WILL NOT FIT IN - the graphic is wholely spam

p. 576 is absolutely obnoxious spam

they do allotta ABBA (a rock band) CCP (chinese police) bullshit, which never fooled me, and at the end say

"and this is same as p. 565"

WHICH I ALREADY KNEW - their fig. 10.53 was obviously the same as fig 10.52 - they used "different views, introduced a whole another language and face type, then said at the end of their spam: it was the same"

this is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT, it's now how mathematics allows the same to be plotted. it is simply spam to prevent learning.

(a) Two adjacent Po atoms contact each other, so the edge length of this cell is equal to two Po atomic radii: l = 2r

THE 2r is for BCC, not SC, and incorrect as to figure (b)

correction: i meant to delete the 2r part although it is part of the bcc starting equation so presents confusion

the 2r does not match the diagram but works for the part that isn't lying. and usually you'd have mass/vol and find r. the problem is backwards.

consider the 2r part as un-argued or deleted.

Figure 10.49 A simple cubic lattice unit cell contains one-eighth of an atom at each of its eight corners, so it contains one atom total.

(my fear - #1 that's not true diag. is wrong and that students will associate volume of one cell with that of atom - becaue the book says to do that like 10x)