Remember me Veeky Forums...

what program do you use to write your shit?

Microsoft Word.

Where are all the chemists?

What's your claim, in plain language?

I created an equation that can predict all the properties of real gases from first principles. All other models of real gases are just curve fits.

Then what the fuck are you on Veeky Forums, go collect nobel prizes, faggot.

Oh wait, no. The reason you are not collecting nobel prizes and instead on Veeky Forums is because you got jack shit.

Anything you say I will disregard because if you were talking truth then you would be the new Barnett and we would be making threads about you.

Back to /b/.

Could you post the whole thing so I can go through it? I'm not great at physical chemistry but I love molecular modeling and this seems interesting.

> I've just always wanted to know if it was bullshit or if there was something to it.

It's possible that spending so much time on Veeky Forums has degraded your mind to the point that professors are so put off by your insistence on putting 'bullshit' in every sentence that they didn't give you a fair shake, but the more-likely possibility is that an undergraduate didn't actually come up with the most significant result in physical chemistry in a fit of disillusionment.

Why are so mad?
K ill have to log into my pc
Well thats what this thread is for, to see if I did or not. Im happy for you to debunk my claim.

Thanks man, I may not be able to go through it all for a little bit but I think I can puzzle together what you are attempting if I have the whole thing instead of just pieces.

Your claim is the equivalent of the perpetual motion machines that various anons were having paranoid delusions about 2 years ago. Since then they've moved on to flat earth 'satire', and yet you're still doing this.

Any professor at any university would jump at the chance to study any remotely-looking research that an undergraduate might have done.

>any remotely-looking research
Looking what?

Here it is. Honestly, I cringe reading it too 7 years later but it gets the right answer so I dunno what to make of it.

docdroid.net/ygLo4Gu/equation-of-state.pdf.html

This thread but excites me and confuses me. I absolutely hate physical chemistry so I can't poke any hole in OPs post but neither has anyone else. Hope it stays alive long enough to get some answers.

Honestly OP post it on Reddit, the problem with Veeky Forums is this board is too diversified while a specialized Reddit chemistry board would be more probable to find an answer.

>I can't poke any hole in OPs post but neither has anyone else

I'm surprised too. I just woke up and logged in to my PC expecting 10 angry replies as to why it's utter bullshit and I should kill myself as happens with all the other amateur ideas I've ever posted on here but nope, not a single word against it. Maybe I have discovered something?

Yeah I think I'm going to have to ask Reddit or StackExchange because nobody here can give me an answer.

I'm giving it a look. I'm not an expert in physical chemistry, but i'm a physic student. That's good, it makes sense. basically yuo've linked the LJ potential to the equation of gas' state. I can't find any hole. You definitely should send it to a professor

I am nowhere close to a scientist (I lurk Veeky Forums for the math) but what I gather from reading your stuff is that you're basically using the Lennard-Jones potential to (completely) explain all deviation from ideal gas behaviour.

I.e. you start from the assumption that Z - 1 = (sigma/r)^12 - (sigma/r)^6 up to a proportionality constant (and everything else is just algebra)

Which, from the POV of an outsider like myself, is pretty neat, but I find it hard to believe that applying L-J to the ideal gas law is an original insight that no chemist has ever thought of. (Googling "lennard-jones ideal gas" yields >80k results.) I can't imagine your professors getting excited over such a thing, in all honesty.

Your proportionality makes zero fucking sense.
You are essentially claiming your formula is proportional to one. Well color me fucking surprised, I'll solve all my math that way, solution is always proportional to 1, one way or the other. You aren't claiming any linear or inverse or any other standard proportionality, you are claiming there's a function mapping expression on the left to the expression on the right, which is true, but completely meaningless.

Yes that's what I did. I'm not in university anymore, I quit after a year remember? Is there any UK chemistry or physics student here who could give me an audience with their professor?
the L-J potential is already used to calculate the coefficients of the virial equation of state but that is a) totally different, an infinite series with correspondingly infinite coefficients b) it cannot calculate Boyle and critical temperature on it's own, only in combination with the van der Waals Equation which as I said is basically just a curve fit. Either way my method is more accurate.
I dunno man, it Just Werks™

A quick look at your first page and the van der Waals equation says that your method is identical to the van der Waals method except that you have fixed the relation between the [math]a[/math] and [math]b[/math] parameters by choosing the L-J potential. Given that the L-J potential was built to model the potential described by these parameters in a simplistic fashion, it is unsurprising that this works.

I remember you and I adequately explained the state of the field and the context of your irrelevant ideas to it the first time. Go read the archived thread.

Why is this still bothering you? There's nothing here.
In your first thread you claimed other reasons for quitting and said that you just spent a lot of hours from your summer break on this before dropping.

Now suddenly you fucking "quit" out of some imagined principle that your professors didn't see your genius?

Like most undergrads you went on an intellectual goose chase, most people don't regret it because even a goose chase is still exercise. You will always regret this because you don't have a career in sceince so it was an utter waste of time for you.

Accept it and don't post this shit on Veeky Forums again.

If you read more than the first page you will see that it has absolutely nothing to do with the van der Waals method. The van Der waals method is adding constants to the ideal gas law to make it fit a real curve. This is a Boltzmann distribution.
>I remember you and I adequately explained the state of the field and the context of your irrelevant ideas to it the first time
You rightly dismissed it because I had nothing to show. Now I found the document which is why I made another thread
>Why is this still bothering you? There's nothing here.
As I said I forgot about it until I found out Microsoft didn't let me delete it. There's clearly something here, it clearly works as you can see in the results tables. I'm asking why.
>Now suddenly you fucking "quit" out of some imagined principle that your professors didn't see your genius?
That was autistic and I already apologized for that

>Like most undergrads you went on an intellectual goose chase
Yes we all do this but this time I somehow came up with something that is better than what's in the textbook. Sounds to me that you're just butthurt that you never came up with anything yourself. If you can post an equation that is already in the literature that can more accurately calculate the Boyle temperature of a gas than mine then do so. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

We get mad at anons who come here claiming to have created an alternate theory of gravity or whatever because they never even post a single line of maths to back it up. OP is different, not only has he provided his mathematical reasoning but he has given a list of predictions from his theory that actually does match with experimental data. I'm sure that is unprecedented in the history of Veeky Forums.

>The van Der waals method is adding constants to the ideal gas law to make it fit a real curve.
You did the same thing using the L-J potential; the two terms of that potential are explicitly meant to contain information on the [math]a[/math] and [math]b[/math] parameters of the van der Waals equation. Your equation hides this explicit dependence behind an assumed relation between these parameters and the use of proportionalities rather than equalities until it reappears as a dependence upon a constant multiplier in your temperature scales. It is possible your result is "new," but I doubt it is revolutionary.

Ok, but 2 questions; If my equation is a curve fit why can it be used to find the critical temperature even if you never take any measurements of the pressure, volume and temperature of the gas? To calculate critical temperature with van der Waals you need to know the constants which you get from fitting the equation to a curve and that curve you got from taking pressure, volume and temperature measurements.

The second question is, if my equation is just a repackaged van der Waals Equation why is it way more accurate?

Hey op, post this on reddit to r/chemistry or r/physics or whatver other subreddit, or even another site, and post the link I'm interested to see what you discovered/ or didn't discover. Post the link here after.

OP's facade of pseudo humility is starting to show some cracks. How delightful. Carry on Veeky Forums.

t. Veeky Forums

reddit.com/r/chemistry/comments/4lhmth/i_made_an_equation_of_state/
>you make baseless attacks
>i defend myself
>you say i am being arrogant
well played

Deleted original due to fucking up tags.

Anyways, to the first, the L-J potential is a fit to begin with. You can argue the long range behavior from dipole-dipole interactions, but the short range behavior is basically made up to fit the data available. So, while you do not explicitly fit the data, your entire result is based upon something that was and thus your result is not derived form first principles, but curve fitting.

For the second, your method is a slight advancement on the van der Waals model, but in a fairly trivial manner for the reasons stated in the first part: you get better results because you used a better fit than a hard core repulsion and constant attraction when you picked the L-J potential.

You're first answer makes sense but your second I still don't see how it has anything to do with van der Waals. van der Waals doesn't say anything about quantized intermolecular energies. van der Waals can't even compute Boyle temperature on it's own, it has to be combined with the virial equation of state. If my equation was a van der Waals rehash then it would not be able to calculate the Boyle temperature on it's own.

post the font/size/margins/settings you use please OP. I really like your shit

lol thanks, I don't even remember, looks like Times New Roman size 12 to me

It can give the Boyle temperature without the virial equation of state. The only time it wouldn't work is when the area of hard core repulsion is on the scale of your system, at which point you have other problems if you are trying to apply statistical mechanics.

No it can't, the derivation uses the virial equation. post a link showing otherwise.

If you use the virial equation, you just get the van der Waals result less higher order corrections; a Taylor expansion in b/V is not some epic failure.

I see that you are correct. Thanks for explaining what it really is and why it works.
>your method is a slight advancement on the van der Waals model
I don't mean to toot my own horn but c'mon, I remember I learned the van der Waals Equation in second term so like March and by summer I'd made an improved version. It's not revolutionary because there are plenty of other modern equations of state out there but I'm proud of myself.

There's one more thing though, what's up with the quantization business? Why did I have to do that to get the answer? I've never read anywhere that intermolecular separations were quantized I just ran with that model because that's what my equation told me. I have never seen any proof that it's actually physically true. intermolecular separations in a gas can take any value right?

Look into "lattice gases" and the connection between the statistical mechanics of the Ising model and fluids. The short answer reason is that stat mech gives no shits about the microscopic physics.

This may show someone did the same thing already:
sklogwiki.org/SklogWiki/index.php/Lennard-Jones_model

can we take a moment to just appreciate how good OP's papers look?

For a good paper you should have researched different gas models and compared all of them in the tables.

hahahahaha it really doesn't

I was gonna but I got lazy

bump

It's just default Word settings.

y u bumping my thread? you want me to answer a question? Shoot.

OP here, Stack Exchange says my equation is original.

Would you bother to do it now?

If someone was going to help me publish it then yes, otherwise what is the point in me continuing to work on this if nobody is interested and I'm not even in the field anymore?

Just for you though I've thrown together a quick comparison with the van der Waals Equation. Pic related

So has anyone refuted OP's paper or what?

Veeky Forums has not
Reddit has not
Physics Stack Exchange says I should publish

link to stackexchange thread?

Is OP the next Mochizuki?

I found it: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/51926/is-this-equation-of-state-original

When I was 18, I was practicing my Latex on my optics assignments
No excuse
You can learn it in one day

I do engineering now, I have no reason to ever learn Latex

how did you derive your equations ?

it looks like a taylor series expansion

docdroid.net/ygLo4Gu/equation-of-state.pdf.html

rofl

>Physics Stack Exchange says I should publish

OP you're such a turd "King Chem"

sorry chem stack exchange and one guy did say that in the comments.

>I dunno man, it Just Werks™
so then you are just fitting your data to a known curve. that proves nothing really. i bet this is the problem that a real professor can actually check and tell you.

fitting a curve exactly is not hard to do with enough parameters. I have no idea how your textbook fitted the curve. but if its not as accurate don't you think its simplified to get nicer formulas and simpler calculations. ( not a chemist)

is this samefagging now lol? nobody on Veeky Forums likes Microsoft words

I repeat, I challenge you to present an equation in this thread that can predict the Boyle temperature of a gas more accurately than mine.

I'm waiting.

i think its common sense that you can add some extra parameters in your equations to make it even more accurate so that it removes the errors you had. if you are not constrained to anything

The original L-J 12-6 potential that it is derived from is a fudge so you would have to re-derive it with a more accurate potential curve. Can be done I suppose.

Your equation may be luckily more accurate, but your derivation is suspect. You seem to confuse state variables of the whole substance with variables of the individual particles, and leave no room for expectation values. Maybe go through stat mech 101 again?

I don't think you understand why your model isn't useful. It's much more complicated than VDW, and only gives marginally better results.

VDW is not used practically to predict values of these gases, we use much more complicated simulations to do that. Yours and VDW are toy models, which can be played around with to reveal simple behaviours of the gases. Yours reveals no more than the VDW (VDW is simplest model exhibiting a phase transition) yet it is much more complicated to manipulate. If you want to make accurate predictions, you'd use a much more complicated model than yours. If you want to play around with a state function, you'd use a simpler model than yours.

Your equation straddles the middle, and is quite completely useless.

>but your derivation is suspect. You seem to confuse state variables of the whole substance with variables of the individual particles, and leave no room for expectation values.
Yeah but...it werks™
>I don't think you understand why your model isn't useful.
I never ever said it was useful. I said it's original which it apparently is.

You couldn't disprove my equation, you couldn't prove it was done before so now you are attacking it as useless. So? This isn't engineering, this is pure science where we pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Have you ever come up with anything original?

FYI it isn't "marginally" more accurate than VDW.

For CO2:

van der Waals says Tb = 1099 K

My equation says Tb = 701 K

The actual value is Tb = 714 K

For N2:

van der Waals says Tb = 426 K

My equation says Tb = 319 K

The actual value is Tb = 327 K

van der Waals is 385 K out whereas mine got it to within 13 K

You could devise an equation that perfectly fits all existing data, but doing so wouldn't be interesting unless it could be used on new data. This is not as original as you think.

My equation isn't curve fitted to Boyle temperature data.
>This is not as original as you think.
Well for like the third time, post an equation for the Boyle temperature that is anywhere near as accurate as mine.

Fuck math tags.

Same guy as (You) here. I just actually looked at your first page in some detail and see two glaringly obvious flaws that I had missed before:
1.) The condition [math]U(r)=0[/math] is not a sufficient condition to say there are no forces between molecules of the gas as [math]F=\nabla_r U(r)[/math].
2.) Your proportionality between [math]Z−1[/math] and [math]U[/math] does not follow from your bullet points (even if they were correct) as there may be non-constant terms which don't alter the parity of [math]U[/math].

In light of these two problems, your underlying physics and basic mathematics are deeply flawed and so that your equation works at all is probably just a weird coincidence of starting with something that is a good fit (the Lennard-Jones potential) and not doing enough wrong to screw it up too badly.

I don't dispute any of this, derivation is a pile of horse shit. As I said I only ever did nine months of chemistry before dropping out. But it works meaning that it is a valid theory that could be reformulated into something that's actually rigorous.

>I know I just vomited on a paper and everything I wrote is retarded shit, but hear me out : it works!

fuck off

But it does. The comparison with experimental data is there for you to see. It's not a claim it's the truth. I'm saying it's badly derived because it was written by an amateur but to get the correct answer it must be fundamentally right.

The burden is on your to show this is worthwhile. The fact it works for a couple of cherrypicked examples of yours doesn't mean shit when you've clearly shown you know nothing of chemistry. "It works as far as I can see" doesn't mean anything, and it sure as hell doesn't mean it's "fundamentally right".

Holy fucking shit you can fit any kind of bullshit curve to any kind of fucking data you want you colossal retard that doesn't mean you've discovered a meaningful relationship

>derivation is a pile of horse shit
>But it works meaning that it is a valid theory
>to get the correct answer it must be fundamentally right.

If that were the case, you could just write down equation after equation, compare them to data, and if one of them comes close to describing experimental data, you'd have a "theory." Rinse and repeat.
Except this way you won't know anything about the physics involved, at all. What insight does this bring, exactly?
The derivation is shit? Ex falso...

>The burden is on your to show this is worthwhile
I did with the results. Stack Exchange agrees with me.
>couple of cherrypicked examples of yours
What's cherrypicked about them? Ethane and chlorine are very different gases no? Anyways feel free to test it out on any gas of your choice. Once you've done this and noted discrepancies then you will be qualified to to say that "the data was cherrypicked"
>you've clearly shown you know nothing of chemistry
I made an equation of state more accurate than one already in the literature despite knowing nothing of chemistry? How did I do it? Aliens?
>"It works as far as I can see" doesn't mean anything
No it works because it works. That means it works. I hear a lot of dismissals and not a lot of actual proof that my equation doesn't work.
>it sure as hell doesn't mean it's "fundamentally right".
Yeah it does. If the theory was incorrect it would not have gotten the right answer.

Anyway as I said I'm getting a whole lot of criticism from you but no actual reasons as to why the theory is bunk.

In order to back up your claims that it's "wrong" or "not original" you need to do two simple things; either provide proof that shows it doesn't match experimental data or provide an equation for Boyle temperatures that is either the same or better. This is your homework. if you cannot do this then I don't expect to hear from you again.

For the thousandth time it is not curve fitted to the data that it produces. This is plain to see in the document. It's curve fitted to the L-J potential but that hasn't got anything to do with Boyle temperatures.

>Stack Exchange agrees with me.
One person expressed mild interest and a heavy dose of skepticism and you construe it as "Stack Exchange agrees with me".

This is reaching pathetic levels of desperation. If you want to feel like you're special go join a cult.

I am and didn't claim you fit anything at all. Have you read my post?
All I am saying is that "the theory must be fundamentally right" is hardly the only conclusion you can draw from "here is this equation whose derivation is based on faulty physics and a shady derivation, but it seems to describe data somewhat reasonably well."
It boggles my mind how you think this conclusion is unavoidable.

If stack exchange didn't agree with me then others would have posted that it's bullshit. Stack Exchange is of a higher calibre than Veeky Forums. Ive read his other answers, he appears to be well versed in physical chemistry, probably a grad student. What are your credentials exactly?

I see now what has happened, you were the haters at the beginning of the thread but when it wasn't disproved you slinked away. Since someone recently pointed out the derivation is flawed you have come back latching onto that as a reason to shout me down because you don't like to see others accomplish anything. It's not revolutionary or even useful but it is an accomplishment. You can say it's not an accomplishment all you want but until you post a better equation for the Boyle temperature which I have asked you to do about five times already why should I listen to you? How about you stop being a bitter asshole, it's not my fault that you never came up with anything original yourself. Attacking me won't change the fact that you're mediocre.

I am not here to claim the theory is revolutionary or even to claim credit. I came here to ask if it worked and was original. No-one has proved otherwise so shut the fuck up.

Sure it could be a straight fluke but I don't see how this is possible. Please highlight the part of the derivation where you think that I just made a wild guess?

>to get the correct answer it must be fundamentally right.

Ok, I have looked over your stuff some more and the more I look, the worse it gets. At the Boyle temperatures, your gas becomes incredibly dense. Furthermore, you have the problem that to get positive temperatures, your equation for the Boyle temperature requires the energy multiplier of the L-J potential be negative, meaning it is short range ridiculously strongly attractive and long range repulsive, etc. The more I look at it, the more I think the reason you get anything looking correct is pure luck with absolutely no good physical motivation.

If you tried to measure a vehicle's constant velocity, and you systematically overestimated both the distance it travels by some factor and the time it takes for that by the same factor, your systematic errors cancel out and give a correct result.
I am not sure if something similar might have happened, i.e. two perhaps faulty steps (or assumptions) in your derivation cancelled out to some extent, and I don't care to find out. But it is a possibility.
As it stands, the physical content is nebulous.

>luck
Had to be with only nine months of chemistry study. However I still think there's something to it, no way can you fluke a 9 page derivation.
>At the Boyle temperatures, your gas becomes incredibly dense
I don't get what you mean here
>Furthermore, you have the problem that to get positive temperatures, your equation for the Boyle temperature requires the energy multiplier of the L-J potential be negative, meaning it is short range ridiculously strongly attractive and long range repulsive, etc
If it's what I think your saying I noticed this too. Maybe the overall attraction and repulsion averages out to that which makes the gas behave ideally?

Perhaps. All I ever wanted was an expert in this field to explain it. Hopefully that stack exchange guy will.

But in any case how can a theory that is completely wrong give a correct result? Your example isn't completely wrong because s=d/t is correct. That's why I say even if the fuckup is rectified I still believe the theory will still work. I agree with you that there are fuckups but I don't agree that the entire thing is wrong. Remeber that it didn't just get one correct result it got three. An expression for Boyle temperature, an expression for critical temperature and that the ratio of the two is a constant. This would have to have been an astronomical fluke if the entire theory was complete bullshit

>I don't get what you mean here
Plug the Boyle temperature into your volume equation used to arrive at the Boyle temperature and calculate the volume per atom:
As [math]\sigma[/math] is small, the numerator is small; as [math]\ln\frac{3}{4}[/math] is negative, the denominator is huge (taking the '+' as the '-' leads to an imaginary volume which is nonsense), leading to a very small volume per atom.
>Maybe the overall attraction and repulsion averages out to that which makes the gas behave ideally?

That doesn't work as the only equilibrium position is unstable to perturbation. Thus, the gas should either collapse or blow away to zero density; no in between allowed.

I should add that it kinda makes sense that you end up getting negative temperature values since you are basically working with population inversion given your requirements on the Boltzmann factor.