fyeahchemistry: madlori: This graphic (supposedly) represents the bonding mode of carbon.  One of the reasons all life forms are carbon-based on this planet is that carbon can make four bonds arranged in a totally symmetrical tetrahedron shape, with the angle between any two of these bonds being 109.5 degrees. This diagram has pictured it incorrectly.  The carbon is shown in the center of the bottom square plane.  That’s not where it should be.  It should be floating in the center of the tetrahedron (which the figure above is not).  Those H-C-H angles are labeled as 109 but they appear to be 90. You’d think if they were making a science poster they’d get the actual geometry right.  The figure above is not even a tetrahedron (4 vertices), it’s a square pyramid (5 vertices).  A square pyramid has one square face and four triangular face; a tetrahedron only has four triangular faces.  I’ve been staring at that figure above for awhile wondering if I was just missing something or seeing it wrong, but I don’t think I am.  Four of the vertices are labeled H, the one in the center with the dotted lines to is it labeled C, and one is just…not labeled.  If we assume it’s H then this molecule would be CH5, which…is impossible under normal conditions. This is what carbon’s bonding actually looks like. ^ Thank you. As someone who prides himself on his ability to draw out accurate and good-looking diagrams, I’m pleased to find someone who knows about chemistry to explain why this diagram is bad. I also enjoy the explanation of the carbon molecule because my art is built mainly on tetrahedrons. So that’s a very nice coincidence.
Pop-upView Separately

fyeahchemistry:

madlori:

This graphic (supposedly) represents the bonding mode of carbon.  One of the reasons all life forms are carbon-based on this planet is that carbon can make four bonds arranged in a totally symmetrical tetrahedron shape, with the angle between any two of these bonds being 109.5 degrees.

This diagram has pictured it incorrectly.  The carbon is shown in the center of the bottom square plane.  That’s not where it should be.  It should be floating in the center of the tetrahedron (which the figure above is not).  Those H-C-H angles are labeled as 109 but they appear to be 90.

You’d think if they were making a science poster they’d get the actual geometry right.  The figure above is not even a tetrahedron (4 vertices), it’s a square pyramid (5 vertices).  A square pyramid has one square face and four triangular face; a tetrahedron only has four triangular faces.  I’ve been staring at that figure above for awhile wondering if I was just missing something or seeing it wrong, but I don’t think I am.  Four of the vertices are labeled H, the one in the center with the dotted lines to is it labeled C, and one is just…not labeled.  If we assume it’s H then this molecule would be CH5, which…is impossible under normal conditions.

This is what carbon’s bonding actually looks like.

^ Thank you.

As someone who prides himself on his ability to draw out accurate and good-looking diagrams, I’m pleased to find someone who knows about chemistry to explain why this diagram is bad. I also enjoy the explanation of the carbon molecule because my art is built mainly on tetrahedrons. So that’s a very nice coincidence.

Source: rivarius

889 Notes/ Hide

  1. blithe-rivera reblogged this from rivarius
  2. pulsars4ndquasars reblogged this from fyeahchemistry
  3. cupid-painted-blind reblogged this from censoring
  4. bigbirdonacid reblogged this from fyeahchemistry
  5. untitledreason reblogged this from fyeahchemistry
  6. jacks-cerebral-cortex reblogged this from rawrcatgoesrawr
  7. nervefreefall reblogged this from fyeahchemistry
  8. dejn reblogged this from godbody
  9. kingdomskingdom reblogged this from halfknots
  10. fractalself reblogged this from halfknots
  11. halfknots reblogged this from censoring
  12. censoring reblogged this from aeonzool
  13. cestmavieelleestennuyeux reblogged this from fyeahchemistry
  14. mochitastic reblogged this from madlori
  15. clockwork-toi reblogged this from fyeahchemistry
  16. shewhohasclaimedthisurl reblogged this from partitionpostulate and added:
    The worst part is that it is ridiculously easy to find out the molecular geometry of methane (just google it, or look it...
  17. oleicacid reblogged this from fyeahchemistry
  18. thesilencefalls reblogged this from fyeahchemistry
  19. aceeccc reblogged this from sketchlock and added:
    rofllllllllllll. finally something that made me crack a smile lol. but i still dun like the second diagram either…...
  20. mangodino reblogged this from religionisbullshit
  21. wehavecookie reblogged this from p3ssimist
  22. maytinee reblogged this from madlori and added:
    remember TWO things from chemistry....always joke that
  23. inoshie reblogged this from fyeahchemistry
  24. folding-space reblogged this from sketchlock
  25. 12blueberriesatbakerst reblogged this from onepersonarmy
  26. nakam62 reblogged this from el-rejtem-magam
  27. krautgoesberserk reblogged this from fyeahchemistry
  28. equationforanescape reblogged this from rondeau
  29. rinja reblogged this from fyeahchemistry