no kidding, I never thought :MASSIVE roll eyes:
hydrogen is a solitary proton, therefore the use of plural implies either the case of more protons in the nucleus, or more protons flying around. taking half a look at context reveals exactly what I meant.

well then, how about you dont use the same text yourself?


a cation of hydrogen could not physically create a metallic bond. it is physically impossible, I M P O S S I B L E

but neither one of these can create the metallic bonds that you are suggesting. therefore I assumed you realized I was talking of the neutral atom.

just more proof that you are illiterate...
I never said that "the heavier the better", I said "you are better off with a heavy metal instead"
there is a major distinction there.

you never cease to amaze me.

its "were", not "was".

and the dark ages believed the world was flat, yet they happened to live on it anyway.
are you implying that you need to know how metal works in order to use a computer? because thats wacky, even for you.

its not the metal bonds that are stopping the radiation, its the structure of the non-valence electrons within the metals that are bound in the electron sea. thats why lead will stop x-rays, but cuprum or sodium or lithium or gold will not.
this is getting pathetic. if protecting space ships was so easy, wouldnt we NOT be freaking out over it?

Good, we agree.

I will leave this thread alone now, its dispicable really, you have both been repeating the same thing over and over again. Why cant you accept the differance in judgement and move on?



Oh blah, stop trying to defend yourself.

I only saw single Hydrogen with multiples proton reveal a "grave grammar mistakes".


Referring to you doesn't meant I used it.


So are you saying a cation of hydrogen can't form metallic bond since it can attach itself to a metal elemental? Cationic Hydrogen can form bond with a crystal lattice.(Like how metal can be rusted with oxygen.)


Apparently you don't know what reading in-line(I do it all the time.) meant. Notice that you said "you are better off .... instead" which suggest that the heavier atom you use the better. Only mistake I see is that you are suggest that I "forget" that it was only for me but since it is internet "you" can mean anyone.

Why don't you speak English since you seem to have a case of contradictio in terminis.

You miss that maintain meaning going inside my PC and remove faulty parts and replace them etc... (I need to turn off the computer because of the metal being very conductive to electric while PC is on.) Not use per se.

Apparently you are the only one freaking out over radiation shield per se. I am sure humanity will one day, To boldly go where no Ninja has gone before.

its a matter of physics, not judgement. this is where you can call someone flat out wrong and be justified in your claim.

or the well founded assertion that you dont understand english.

you didnt REFER to it, you used it in context first.

idiot.
how can something create a metal lattice with no electrons? it CANNOT.
second; rust is not a metal, its a metal oxide that doesnt exist in a metallic lattice. but by the very distant stretch that it could form a metal lattice when oxidized, that would still require electrons, which H+ doesnt have.

this, coming from you, is laughable.
needless to say, you're point is wrong, to the greatest extreme.

if I asked my 3 year old cousin if you should be in a pool when there is a thunderstorm, even she could tell me "no". that doesnt mean she understands that electrons pass through water by jumping from ion to ion. understanding obvious physical properties, and understanding the structure behind something are two very different things.

you must live in a cave...
NASA has out several multi-million dollar rewards for anyone able to make a lightweight and effective shield capable of reducing the REMs that astronauts recieve by at least 100x.

Your grammar is still also foundation of bad grammars error too. Look below for an example.


I will let the audience decide on this by the method of ALT+F. I first refer to crystal lattice and metal yes however you were the first one to utilize hybrid of two property together.

Bare Proton is attractive to electron and thus form a bond. How could you miss this part?(Think Diatomic)

I never said Rust was metal. I was saying catonic hydrogen can form bond with crystal lattice much like(NOT IS) how rust form with oxygen to crystal lattice of metal.


Here you're saying my grammar is bad and yet you're denying your grammar mistakes by attacking my grammars. I don't try to deny my mistakes at all.

I used crystal and metal first in context yes however you was the first one to utilized the hybrid form of metal-crystal in context.

I failed to see the point raised by three year old sister of your.(You used my example albeit horribly.) I was saying if I didn't know property of metal while maintaining/upgrading my computer I wouldn't be here because I would have become a pile of smoking ash.(Just an exaggeration.)

I failed to see your point about NASA giving out millions dollar rewards. They are not the only one to be doing it. Also don't forget that offering rewards doesn't meant you don't have any form of technology relative to that area.
Source: List of People who are worry about Technologies

only denying the ones that dont exist. the occasional "your, you're" mistake is far better than the myriad of simple errors that you're making.

the quote that I made of yours is the first usage of "metal-crystal". I've never used that before.

what does this have to do with anything? you are losing focus of what we're talking about
METALLIC HYDROGEN.

metallic hydrogen does not use a crystal-lattice. what are you talking about?
crystal latticies are compact formations of ions, metallic lattices are basically postively charged ions floating in a sea of electrons. the two are not the same. so if you wish to inform me why you're talking about crystal latticies when we're talking about a metal, go right on ahead.

that is a list of awards, not rewards.

Again you are denying your mistake capitals/punctuations. I am not hiding my errors however you are hiding your grammar errors by attacking my grammar again. The correct form of the above sentence should be as the follow sentence. Only Denying the ones that don't exist. The occasional "your, you're" mistake is far better than the myriad of simple errors that you are making.

[quote]112#post meaning that it has a significant halflife, not meaning that its a good defensive shield. and remember, its a metallic lattice. we already have metallic lattices with far more stable elements, its relative density would mean its not useful.[/qoute]
You make mention of the metallic lattice(Lattice suggest that it has a crystal formation of atoms.) and even wikipedia agree with me that metallic lattice doesn't exist.
Source Link


Refer to my above metallic lattice.

Better to just say either metallic bonds or amorphous metals.

I never said anything about everything on that list being rewards.(I was focus on NASA's rewards before the link. I never said link itself was list of rewards.)

oh shame, I didnt capitalize.

you shame all that is chemistry.
malapropism.
an amorphous metal is a specific, and rare, form of metallic lattice that has special glass-like properties. nothing to do with what we're talking about.

metallic bonds are not metallic lattices, although it is the component form of the bond.
if you dont know what a metallic lattice is, why are you bothering to debate a point that is obviously beyond your knowledge.

http://chemmovies.unl.edu/chemistry/smallscale/SS066.html

http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtext/chembond/cb10.html
et cetera, et cetera.

Then say metallic bond not metallic lattice. Because you shame chemistry with makeup phrase, malapropism, and lack of caveat lector.


Notice lack of metallic lattice. Lattice of positive ions(Can proton themselves float around in the lattice? Of course not.) but not metallic lattice. Same Website that you used. Metallic bond can hold together lattice but not Metallic Lattice is what those websites are saying to me and thus confirm that I do know chemistry.

it isnt a makeup term. just because it doesnt exist on wikipedia doesnt mean its not a bona fide word.

that you dont realize that they are the same thing proves this statement

wrong.

Oh noes Schem, your attacking his grammars.



Yes, but there are so many differnt theories in physics, especially this section of physics.

I am sure you can find sources that will contradict themselves, the credibility of the sources could be questioned, but are you willing to go through all that just to prove him wrong?

As far I know you are the only human that is using this term. I am sure you can figure out the rest.


Are you implying that positive ions in sea of lattice and protons forming metallic bonds themselves are the one and the same? If yes then why don't you submit an essay proving this is true as a unbiased scientist.


Then do the above essay. I will give you enough time to do it.

technically yes, but we aren't dealing with a far-off theory here. its about metallic latticies. something taught in even elementary chem.
you can find theories that deny deny darwinian evolution, but would you listen to them? I hope not.

then obviously you live in a cave, or some other equally isolated environment (I'm thinking tropical island...)

no.
metallic bonds are the constituant components of a metallic lattice (positive ions in an electron sea)
I assure you, you would have to look back ages to find papers proving that. why? because everyone KNOWS this. elementary information. this stuff is at most 4th or 5th grade material, I would hope younger.

Next time you want to emphatic something just use something they teach in Elementary School named adjective in English Classes.


Did you meant those island then we are in the same dream.



If it took me 5 minute to look up a text reference then you certain are somewhat behind the time. (I actually did look up my college book and it was the almost exact same as the link provide by you in earlier post. However it did indeed has an interesting articles titled metallic crystal(It explain that crystal indeed can be metallic itself. However it never said that metal itself can be crystal-isque other than the atom nucleus that form crystallize patterns. This definition doesn't extend to ions.) but nowhere it did once used metal-crystal.) Hopefully your scientists will be contend with this and move on to greener paradise.

Well it obvious that one of you is wrong then, but neither of you will admit it and I wont go through the mess of posts this thread is in order to figure out which.



Lattice is a less used word, it more or less represents a network or frame, while the more simpler term bond would be singular as in a bond between two things rather then many.



I went to schools with blue ribons and all ranked in the top 100, yet they didnt teach any of the stuff I learned in third grade(in Europe) until about 8th grade.

I would like you to rephrase your sentance.

I'm sure your school needs dramatic reworking then. too much focus on your liberal arts.
I've learned these little things ages ago. I'm sorry you haven't, both for you, and for the decaying standards of education in the "civilized" world.

unfortunately lattice refers to the overall structure where bond would refer to the way in which the structure is composed. its a simple distinction.

how much time do you spend on dictionary.com? because we already know that you dont speak english.

which one of us do you think is right? the devil you know? or the one who no speaks englishes correct.

I learned this in 3rd grade, then I moved here.

Whoo!!



'tis what I said Schem.



He might be an ignorant fool(no offence meant), but at least he has the common decency to be try and be nice.

Just because you have the confidence to think yourself right doesnt make it so Schem, so in return I wont give you my opinion of who is right.

then how come you are saying I should simplify it to a malapropism?

luckily I live in a similarly educated place. good for both of us.

oh, so thats what they call it...
here, we call it sarcastic and hypocritical, all this nonsense.
not that I'm not guilty myself.

but the fact that I've done research on this, have spent countless hours studying from various labs, research paper, science magazines and textbooks about the subject, that does make it so.
oh, that and the countless scientists who would happen to be researching under the principle that we live in a world composed of atoms, electrons protons neutrons, charges and structures. rather than a world of "I said so, so it must be so".

Bond is between two people, not the whole freaking society. Couldn't be simpler.


One could argue you are using a form of 1337 English. As for time on dictionary.com zero other than to access the information within which is practically(This is a freaking adjective. Oh yeah freaking is adjective too.) zero.


If the last part above was "Or whom doesn't speaks English correctly" I would gladly jump in your bed. However since it isn't grammar understandable with little effort I won't even give you a resume with English Grammar anywhere on it.


'tis is a actual word. Let me summary for you with a story. Once in a time in Junior High School(I learned English long before this story take places. I learned English 101 most likely Third Grade.) I meet a teacher whom opinion that the word stand doesn't meant the type of chairs like those you see in bars. Wikipedia-Stand:A stand, when referring to an object is an object that supports another object, usually for display purposes. Bottom line even people who teach college can be stupid on a topic themselves however doesn't meant they can try unlike you Ninja.


Researching other scientists paper doesn't qualify you as an expert on this topic or any others. It merely meant you tried to read which doesn't qualify as trying to understand it fully. You still have to do that essay if you want us to respect you as a real scientist.

and you dont understand sarcasm... your repertoir expands...

good, you finally understand.

or one could argue that I'm simply leaving out unimportant fixes.

"'tis" 'tis not what we're refering to.

but it does make me more qualified for talking about this subject than you.

like I said, this is child level material. you dont need to be a scientist to understand this. why this confuses you confounds me to the utmost.

He wants to jump in your bead Schem, beware.

Though we do already know you like dressing up as an old lady, who knows maybe he will be the one to get you out of that well fortified closet

just joking you


40w i5 h3 5p3ak1ng 1n 1337?



There is a very small little comment I could make about this, luckily I have been there and done that already.

Hehe.. boy I wonder what college will be like for you.

Have fun at your study sessions



Yep, woot for Russian education



I meant the comments where he did insult me, even if he didnt mean to, he would still apologize.

Although litterd with arrogance at least it was some form of trying.



I said bonds are a simpler word to use and is used more often.

I didnt actually tell you to do anything.

My repertoire certainly warrant an expansion so big that it outshine your egotistical sarcasm.


I been saying the same thing for last four post(My post up to 132#) albeit differently each time.


Perhaps you took a laser blast in the head while I was looking away. Regardless, I said I did indeed research this subject however my point in the earlier post is researching a topic doesn't meant you are an expert at all.(Don't look at something to understand. Rather either making it or do experiments in that field will certain help with qualifying as a respected scientist. Disclaimer:I don't know the exact requirement to become scientist.)


Are you saying you only need a chemical kit(Those that come prepared and packaged in store.) to understand how some water is heavier than other? That is quite big exaggerating here assuming an average elementary third graders. Unless you are thinking of those kids that skip both Junior and High school to go straight up to college which isn't that all common. Don't forget those kids still have to finish fifth grader before taking a course in chemistry unless home schooled which is whole another issues.

My repertoire certainly warrant an expansion so big that it outshine your egotistical sarcasm.


I been saying the same thing for last four post(My post up to 132#) albeit differently each time.


Perhaps you took a laser blast in the head while I was looking away. Regardless, I said I did indeed research this subject however my point in the earlier post is researching a topic doesn't meant you are an expert at all.(Don't look at something to understand. Rather either making it or do experiments in that field will certain help with qualifying as a respected scientist. Disclaimer:I don't know the exact requirement to become scientist.)


Are you saying you only need a chemical kit(Those that come prepared and packaged in store.) to understand how some water is heavier than other? That is quite big exaggerating here assuming an average elementary third graders. Unless you are thinking of those kids that skip both Junior and High school to go straight up to college which isn't that all common. Don't forget those kids still have to finish fifth grade before taking a course in chemistry unless home schooled which is whole another issues.

Now your missing a few articles, and you raelly do have to work on sentance structure. To me it almost looks like your taking the words from schem's sentances and copying and pasting them together until they make some kind of meaningless jumble of worlds.

As to the kids who skip both high school and middle schoo, thats quite an impossibility. Not only would they not be psychologically ready for college, no college in the world would be foolish enough to accept them.



How about a PhD?



You have your own errors. Mostly in s and commas.

different? as in different laws of physics?

and I said; if you needed to be an expert, I wouldnt be talking about it.
then again, oh ye who masters hypocrisy, how can you critique me if indeed you do not know?

no, just not being a dumbass is a fine enough qualification.

I think this is the point where I pity your education.
nah, I'll just go higher mr. T.

true...

and in either the understanding of "warrant" or "repertoir"

yes, I shall now riddile my sentances with intentional errors just to annoy yuo.