Thursday, April 10, 2014

Proposal: Pun Involving Ironic and Ionic

Reaches quorum and passes 4-0. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 11 Apr 2014 16:52:13 UTC

Add to the rule “Fission”

An Atom with 1 Proton always has a Nuclear Instability of zero.

Add a new rule “Ionic Bonding”

If two Ions are incapable of undergoing Ionization with each other and have opposite Charges, either one may Form an Ionic Bond between them. An Atom’s Ionic Bonds will be kept track of in a column of the GNDT. When a new Ionic Bond is Formed, both Atoms involved will have the name of the other Atom added to their Ionic Bonds GNDT column. An Ionic Bond always exists between two different Atoms and is two directional; if one Atom is Ionically Bonded to another, the other is Ionically Bonded to it as well. If for any reason, the Charge on either Atom changes such that the Charges of the two Ionically Bonded Atoms either are not opposite or are zero, the Ionic Bond immediately Breaks and the names of both Atoms are removed from each of their Ionic Bond GNDT columns. This is the only way an Ionic Bond can Break.

So I realized that if you have 1 proton, 0 neutrons, and 2 (or more) electrons, if you Decay, you dont lose any protons or neutrons, but you lose electrons. 1. this doesnt make sense thematically, and 2. it would create an illegal Reagent with only electrons.

posted by benzene at 10 Apr 2014 18:17:11 UTC Comments (6)

Comments

pizzashark:

10-04-2014 22:20:26 UTC

I think it might be better to allow for ionic bonds between more than two atoms, but maybe this would be better.  imperial

IceFromHell:

11-04-2014 01:51:30 UTC

for

RaichuKFM: she/her

11-04-2014 02:06:02 UTC

for

benzene:

11-04-2014 03:14:15 UTC

I don’t think the rule prevents one Atom from bonding to multiple other Atoms, does it?

pizzashark:

11-04-2014 04:14:34 UTC

The rule only allows for the bonding of two at a time, and if those two don’t have opposite charges then the bond immediately breaks. Take for example CaCl2, a molecule that occurs naturally. If you were to have an atom with a charge of +2(the calcium atom) and two atoms with a charge of -1(the chlorine atoms), then with this rule, you would have to bond the atoms to each other one at a time. You would try to bond the calcium atom with a chlorine atom, but the bond would break immediately because their charges wouldn’t be opposites. Because of the bond breaking, you wouldn’t be able to add on the other chlorine atom, and you’d just be left with a little pile of lonely atoms.

Another problem that I just noticed is that the rule allows for somebody to make a chain of atoms with opposite charges. For example, an atom with a charge of +1 could bond with an atom with a charge of -1, which is completely fine, but then the atom with the charge of +1 still has a charge of +1, and could therefore bond with another atom with a charge of -1. You’d then have an atom with a charge of +1 bonded with two atoms that have charges of -1, making an ionic compound with a total charge of -1, which obviously wouldn’t work realistically. One of the -1 atoms could then do the same with another +1 atom, which could then do the same with another -1, etc. To avoid this, I suggest changing an atoms charge to the sum of its charge and the charges of every atom it’s bonded with.

benzene:

11-04-2014 19:13:40 UTC

I’m not so worried about only making compounds that occur naturally. And anyway, CaCl2 doesnt exist as neutral Cl-Ca-Cl “molecules” floating around each other, its a big network of Ca and Cl in a lattice with each positively charged atom in contact with multiple negatively charged ones, and vice versa. So making a chain of +-+-+ isn’t a problem, it actually makes sense, especially because you’re not limited to chains and can actually make sheets or actual lattices, by having something like:

+-+-
-+-+
+-+-