/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6355647
If it stores tremendous amounts of energy, and doesn't occur naturally, then it'll take just as much energy to make it as you'll get out of it.

More energy, actually, since breaking down molecules for power is not a 100% efficient process, and neither is synthesizing.

>>6355647
That looks like a set of anal beads I once owned.

I think you're pulling the solution to the energy crisis out of your ass

>>6355649
Why dont we make bacteria to use sunlight and shit it out

>>6355658
You know how we don't have cost-effective bacteria to make oil yet, despite working on them for decades?

Shit's hard, man.

Anyway, photosynthesis is way less efficient than solar panels.

>>6355647
That would never work. There should be a <span class="math">\sigma[/spoiler] bond for each carbon atom along the axis between them and the sulfur.

>>6355667
But can solar panels shit out valuable medicines? Bacteria are the future of making materials.

what the hell would this chemical even be called? assuming the middle atom is supposed to be sulfur, it would be based off of methylsulfanylmethane, obviously...


can sulfur even form two triple bonds? can anything even do a double triple bond...?

>>6355675
>can sulfur even form two triple bonds?

The organic chemistry modeling kit cannot lie, anon.

>>6355655
<span class="math">SPOILER %>not knowing how to spoiler on /sci/[/spoiler]

>>6355683
Yep

>>6355673
Materials and drugs, yes. Not fuels.

>>6355682
organic chemistry modelling kit for president of Earth

>>6355675
>can sulfur even form two triple bonds?
It can, it has enough orbitals in the valence shell. It just needs one extra electron.

>>6355691
But fuels are materials.

>>6355683
<span class="math">SPOILER %fucking newfags[/spoiler]

>>6355649
Actually, OP made this molecule easily with his hands. If we could get a bunch of aisians making these molecules for dirt cheap it would be absolutely brilliant and cheap energy.

>>6355692
There's more to forming molecules than just valence electrons. Where the fuck are you going to fit 4 pi bonds around a single molecule?

>>6355713
wizardry? magic? satanic rituals? fairy powers?

>>6355713
It is people like you that stop us from having free energy.

wish i had my molecular modeling software but my shitty computer decided to die and now i lost the product keys

>>6355703
good god you've solved the energy crisis

>>6355682
I lol'd at this much harder than I should have.

>>6355647
Where do you plug it in?

>>6355675
uhh...

thiodimethyne?

>>6355690
>Mr modeling kit, what will you do to solve the Palestinian issue?

>I think we should remember to never make more than 4 bonds to carbon.

>>6355703
wow my poor sides

>>6355647
From where can you buy these things?

>>6355647
What is that? C2XH2, but what is that yellow thing (X)?

>>6355675
Not all shit even can be named

>>6355675
methanesulfur? methylsulfur?

>>6357389
sulfur

>>6355647
After some statistical analysis, I have come to the conclusion that I've solved the energy crisis even more.

>>6357512
By statistical analysis, I mean dicking around in Avogadro and looking at the probably incorrect numbers.

Avogadro's algorithms tried to make it so your molecule was a straight line with both carbons sitting in exactly the same place with less than 1kJ/mol of bond energy. You broke chemistry.

>>6357512
>the energy crisis

what energy crisis?

>>6357529
Exactly. I fixed it. It doesn't exist any more.

>>6357518

Yeah, I ran this through GAUSSIAN and got a non linear optimised geometry. And also a horrendous bond enthalpy. It then wouldn't do any more calculations cos the wavefunctions aren't valid.

>>6355655

That was the funniest thing I have read this entire week.

>>6357512
I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE to see the IUPAC name of this and some theoretical bond energies.

>>6355647
you people..

>>6355647
A sulfur-diooxygen-diocarbon?