New Method to find the Electronic Configuration of an Element

The most basic thing needed to solve a Chemistry problem is the knowledge of the Electronic structure of the molecules of the compound. And for that one must be able to write down the Electronic Configuration of each element (knowing its Atomic number). For example:

The EC of Carbon with atomic number 6 is 1s² 2s² 2p^2.

While the conventional method of writing down the EC of an element is not particularly complicated and doesn’t even require one to remember a lot of stuff, but still there is one flaw in it- Speed. Yes the traditional method is very slow. Every time we want an EC we have to draw a medium sized table sort of structure and draw zigzag lines upon it (U know what I mean don’t you?).

But I have got a brand new method that achieves the EC of an element from its Atomic number (Z) and is really fast. Let us get on with it.

The EC of any element consists of many terms with each term having 3 elements – 1s². First we are going to focus on the orbitals i.e. s, p, d, f. I am going to fix an order in which we are going to read these four orbitals for the rest of this article (or for the rest of your life if you’ll stick with me till the end). The order is: f, d, p, s. You are now going to divide this order into 4 segments. The first segment contains only the last element of the order i.e. s. The second segment contains the last two elements of the order – p, s. The third segment contains the last three elements of the order- d, p, s. The final segment contains all the elements in order- f, d, p, s. Write down each segment twice starting with the first and ending with the fourth to get your base EC:

s   s      p s   p s      d p s   d p s      f d p s   f d p s

The next part is to fill up the number of electrons in each of the orbitals. S can have max of 2, p can have max of 6, d can have max of 10 and f can have max of 14 electrons. So if I was to write the EC of an element with Z=32, I’ll start by writing the base of the EC as taught above and then filling each orbital with its maximum no. of electrons till all available 32 of them are properly consumed (you don’t have to write the whole base of the EC as it defeats the purpose of this method which is speed. So you can write a first few elements and fill them up with electrons and later if need be add some orbitals to the base to consume all the electrons) Remember you only to write that bit of the base which consumes all the electrons in the element. Now I presume that I’ll be needing only 6 first orbitals from the base so I write them and fill them with electrons-

s² s² p⁶ s² p⁶ s²

Using these 6 I have only consumed 2+2+6+2+6+2=20 electrons and I need to accommodate 12 more so I anticipate and write 3 more orbitals in the base and fill them up till 32 are put in.

S² s² p⁶ s² p⁶ s² d¹⁰ p².

So two out of three things are done till now. Now for the most complicated part- the orbit numbering of each orbital. Following are the thumb rules:

1) All orbits are numbered with numbers from 1 to ….. 8

2) Orbit number ‘1’ comes only ones, 2 comes twice, 3 comes thrice and …….. 8 comes 8 times at maximum in the base EC.

3) If suppose you are writing a number for the n^th  time then n-2 empty elements must be skipped before actually writing it in front of an element in the base EC. An already numbered element in the base EC is automatically skipped and it doesn’t count as skip for the above formula

4) Every time a new number is to be written for the first time, it must be written at the first available empty space from the beginning.

Let us follow these rules and number the entire base EC. Put 1 in front of the first element

1s  s  p  s  p  s  d  p  s  d  p  s  f  d   p  s  f   d  p  s

1’s are done

Put two at the first  empty element from the begining:

1s  2s  p  s  p  s  d  p  s  d  p  s  f  d   p  s  f   d  p  s

Put two for the second time with no skips(skips=n-2=2-2=0)

1s  2s  2p  s  p  s  d  p  s  d  p  s  f  d   p  s  f   d  p  s

2’s are done

3 for the first time at the first available empty space :

1s  2s  2p  3s  p  s  d  p  s  d  p  s  f  d   p  s  f   d  p  s

3 for the second time  (0 skips):

1s  2s  2p  3s  3p  s  d  p  s  d  p  s  f  d   p  s  f   d  p  s

3 for the third time (1 skip as we are writing 3 for the third time so skips=n-2=3-2=1)

1s  2s  2p  3s  3p  (SKIPPED) s  3d  p  s  d  p  s  f  d   p  s  f   d  p  s

3’s are done

4 for the first time at the first available empty space from the beginning:

1s  2s  2p  3s  3p  4s  3d  p  s  d  p  s  f  d   p  s  f   d  p  s

.

.

.

.

.

1s  2s  2p  3s  3p  4s  3d  4p  5s  4d  5p  (SKIPPED)s  4f  5d   (SKIPPED)p  (SKIPPED)s  5f   d  p  s

Now I am about to write 5 for the fifth time(3 skips). But there is no element to number after skipping three empty elements. So we don’t write 5 for the fifth time at all (Imagine writing it in the air). In fact we ignore all those numbers for which the base EC runs out of elements. Following this consideration you will see that 8 can be written only ones in the Base EC.

So here is the final full EC :

1s  2s  2p  3s  3p  4s  3d  4p  5s  4d  5p  6s  4f  5d   6p  7s  5f   6d  7p  8s

While this process looked pretty daunting, it actually is quite simple and after one or two practices it comes out naturally. The thing to be kept in mind is that one can simply write the base EC sufficient enough for a given Atomic number without these orbit numbers and then after having the required segment of the base EC, one can proceed to number it. Hence obtaining the EC of the element very quickly. To demonstrate the quickness of this method, let us take an example:

Z= 65

STEP 1) Anticipate and write the base EC:

s s p s p s d p s d p s f (I guess this is enough to accommodate 65)

then upon the above base only we fill up the electrons till reaching 65

s²  s²  p⁶  s²  p⁶  s²  d¹⁰  p⁶  s²  d¹⁰  p⁶  s²  f¹¹

and finally we number it :

1s²  2s²  2p⁶  3s²  3p⁶  4s²  3d¹⁰  4p⁶  5s²  4d¹⁰  5p⁶  6s²  4f¹¹

And that is our Electronic Configuration.

This Electronic Configurations provided by this method are equally accurate as are the ones provided by the zigzag method and hence it is worth noting that the EC of some element should be excepted from this method as well.

Fridrich Method: An Interesting Criticism

First of all let me just say it, I know all the cubers will laugh at this and all the speedcubers will know that I am not yet one of them, but still let me just say it- The Fridrich Method is a system of solving the Rubik's cube and a pretty good one while we are at it. So continue reading if you know what this is about, else feel free outrage at me for wasting your time.

The Fridrich method is the most used/popular system for solving the cube speedily. All the possible world records are held by practitioners of this system (why do I keep calling it a system ? vocabulary may be !). What we do in this method is beautiful in the sense that one is basically applying short hands (short cuts) to the "Beginners method". I mean in the beginners method- the first step is to build a cross as is in the Fridrich method. And than the beginner method takes forever to complete the first two layers which the Fridrich method does in one go (actually 4). Finally the Fridrich method offers two magical spells - OLL and PLL that together comprehend the last layer which the beginners method sucks at! 

Well these were the positives and mind it, these were really POSITIVE. Now what is about to follow is inspired from what Antony Snider said in one of his rare Youtube videos showing us (actually showing off) his own system. What he said was that when we are solving the cube using the CFOP (Fridrich) method and when we are doing the OLL, we are not being a genius in orienting all the top layer pieces all in one go but we are actually making things bad as in the next step we disturb everything we just did in order to have the pieces in the right places together with in the right orientation. Well he has a point. One can extend his way of looking at it to the whole CFOP and not just the OLL stage. How ? let us see.

Firstly we do the cross (A cliche according to me). Completing the cross is fine as there is nothing we are disturbing or redoing in order to achieve the cross due to this being the very first step. After the cross we do the F2L (the most beautiful part of this system and the one which stands tall intuitive, in a system which other wise has near a 100 algorithms). The F2L is beautiful, but notice while you are putting one of the four F2L pairs together we are constantly disturbing the cross and finally getting it to rest in the way it is meant to be but with a correctly placed F2L pair. My point is why build just only a cross when you know that it has to be disturbed in order to complete the  first two layers. After completing the First 2 Layers, we move on to the OLL stage. The OLL orients all the top layer pieces (more on that later). But notice when you are doing your OLL alg, you are actually disturbing some of your F2L pairs and manipulating them to circle back to their meant to be place but with that, orient everything in the last (top) layer. Let me repeat the question, why do just the F2L when you know that later on you have disturb (manipulate) it in order to achieve a solid color on top (Damn the vocabulary)? 

Now focusing more on what Snider said. Ones we have done the OLL we are on to the PLL stage. But before the implementation of the OLL alg, what we had was a top layer all messed up both in orientation and positioning (permutation). What OLL did was orient all the pieces (flip them correctly) caring less (rather nothing) about where each piece actually needed to go. And this little thing is taken care of by the PLL alg. But again, the PLL alg follows the same pattern i.e. disturb what was done just yet and manipulate it to achieve something extra together with the re-establishment of the previous step. 

So all I am asking is that why do something when you know that just after a quarter of a second (if you are Feilks Zemdegs) you will be disturbing it in order to achieve something extra. Its like writing a sentence in black plain ink (e.g. God I wish I were a speedcuber.) and than in order to highlight some portion of your sentence (say 'speedcuber') you erase that part (God I wish I were a __________) and then write it back in capitals (God I wish I were a SPEEDCUBER) when you could have easily written SPEEDCUBER (in blocks) to begin with. And its not just that, the whole repeating everything with little- little changes all gangs up together posing a serious  question to the efficacy of the whole system. I mean when You do the PLL, you think you are just disturbing the OLL right? but in reality you disturb the OLL which in turn disturbs the F2L which in turn disturbs the cross and you end up adjusting your cross for the third time + adjusting your F2L for the second time and adjusting your OLL for the first time,before finally solving the cube.

Its like after you have written -  "God I wish I were a SPEEDCUBER" , you again erase the "SPEEDCUBER" word cause you need it to be in some coloured font(SPEEDCUBER) and then after you have done that, you erase it again to rewrite it in italics(SPEEDCUBER) and then bold(SPEEDCUBER) and the pain goes on.

Its not like there no alternatives to this, its just that these alternatives takes a long time to master and get up to the same speed as the Fridrich method offers. Snider method it self is one of the alternatives but its not that quick. The Roux is another alternative and its quite fast too. In Roux in the last stage of the solve we only use the M and U slices which directly tells that we are not at all touching what we have acheived before, so there is that. But who am I to say anything, I use Fridrich alg while attempting to solve the cube using Roux!

Anger Management - My Design

For a particular emotion, there is almost always a place which is actually immune to that emotion. For instance (and I say this in outrageous generality), one can't fall in love in a bathroom. Similarly one can't get bored, again in a bathroom. One can't feel alone at home, etc, etc you get the point. But there is one such emotion that comes without notice and comes at all places (may be not the bathroom). This particular emotion it self has a short life but it can have long lasting and mostly nasty consequences. Don't get mad at me, I'm about to get to the point and my point  is ANGER.

Anger is a pretty open minded emotion, it accepts almost any reason as an invitation. For all I know, yesterday I was ready to throw my cell phone at my laptop (pretty much everything I have) just because none of them was charged. And knowing that I typed this article from my laptop, it clearly implies that I didn't. So how do I manage my anger? This is not an expert session, this is my design of anger management.

No, I don't start laughing when I am angry as that is an advance medical procedure meant only for actors playing doctors in a movie. What I do is a little time travel, not in the past searching for some happy place in memory, no. Instead I jump ahead. I pause for a moment and think of where I'll end up after I'll complete my great act of fury. Suppose I'm Bruce Banner and assume that I'm angry. (it kinda is a package deal isn't it?) Now instead of growing big and green- becoming the HULK, I'd just pause for a moment and think my way to the realiation that I wont be wearing any clothes after the display of my glorious powers. So I take the smart road and stick to my clothes.

Suppressing one's anger is never a part of this. The key to this is accepting what you feel. Some people do stupid stuff and blame it all on their state of anger. I on the other  hand accept my anger/ irritation/ frustration and decide not try anything stupid. To help my cause and to make this brand of anger management more fun, I focus on REVENGE. Revenge is nothing to me but a solution, a solution to my anger. I think of ways to avenge my state of happiness. Mostly people would destroy the source which made them angry, I don't. I reciprocate the scenario by inducing the exact amount of anger (may be more - who cares) onto the source. If it has been done properly, I end up relaxed and restored and the thing/ person that made me angry ends up as the HULK i.e. naked. My anger goes away because of the restored balance in the universe and to top it all I feel happy as I win!

So if some one breaks your toy (I couldn't think of a more appropriate example), you should not complain and ask that person to bring back your toy. This will not help as he/she is not gonna do it (either out of inability or out of evilness) and you will end up hitting that person in the face(destroying the source of your anger). What you do is be cool - focus on the revenge. You look for his/her toy or something else of equal importance (not more!) and damage it (not beyond repair). This way the other person is now angry and you are not (if you did it properly). The key is to avoid any dramatic edge to your acts. More cooler you are more the other person is effected.

And you end the exchanges by being like really polite and adding- "Are you angry? Why?"

Of course this is not the most unknown and morally correct thing to do, but as I said- its my design. All I do is take the smart road and restore balance to the universe, but what all of us should do instead is take the high road and have some FORGIVENESS!

Love - A chemical defect

The world is filled up with many people of many types. Each person has its own identity but still each person can be put into some predefined categories based on their general behavior. One such category is of those people who enjoy their inner selves but still envy the world outside it, those who are passionate about many things in their own complex ways but yet admire the simplicity of a human relationships. No, people belonging to this category are not socially awkward or isolated, its just that they don't have what you call- a best friend forever.

People of this group survive just fine in any event governed by social protocols, they just don't get the opportunity to be at the center of it. They are focused in utilizing their intellect to be the best in what they do, they have more hobbies than a person belonging to another category has, and to each of their hobbies they give as much attention as a lover gives to their love. In short, a person belonging to this category loves a lot of things but he/she is desperate for someone who might be loving them.

Life for them passes normally for the better part until those times when they start to think a bit low of them selves. They start thinking that may be they don't deserve love from anyone. Desperation as mentioned above is what owns them in this stage of their of lives. It is that time in their lives when they want the things that they love (including people), respond to them and love them back equally. The passion that they show for many things is what they want for themselves, form someone. And the fact they don't get satisfied with what other people do, they expect very highly. So a best friend forever isn't enough, they want nothing less than a lover- an instant lover. And because of that their behavior changes drastically from focused and intense to diluted and distracted.

So for people of this category, love is, in its most initial form- A CHEMICAL DEFECT, from which I am suffering right now.

The Big Bang Theory VS How I Met Your Mother

TBBT and HIMYM are two such shows which entertain the audience in a way that they start feeling special about their own lives.

What I mean to say is that when we watch these shows, we somehow manage to relate ourselves or otherwise dream of being a part of the lives of the characters of the show. I am not saying that characters in these shows have an ideal life. What I meant is that these shows work around groups of friends. And that is universally appealing to all.

I am going to compare these shows from my point of view but I've got to admit that there is a hell of a lot of similarities between the two, the biggest similarity being the core of both the shows- A small little social group bound strongly together.

In TBBT, we have a group of braniacs and a glamorous waitress, living their lives as they want to and hence producing hillarious situations. While in HIMYM, we have a perfectly normal group of people with no one being a genius- having very complex or unfortunate love lives (except for one couple). As mentioned above- TBBT creates comedy out of the uniqueness of lives that the main characters live. HIMYM on the other side builds up multidimensional emotional relationships between the characters through an immensly long storyline which in general is comical and hilarious but is balanced by little emotional touches here and there.

The story of HIMYM is nested around, while TBBT has a much more free strategy. The funny thing is that although HIMYM focusses on its story more that TBBT and that HIMYM has more episodes than TBBT, yet TBBT has come further ahead in the lives of it characters.

This only proves one point that irrespective of how enteraining HIMYM is, its storyline is ellaborated way too much and hence it has diluted the quality of the show to a considerable extent.

On the other hand despite TBBT being more funny and smart than HIMYM, it has not developed a deep enough emotional connection between the characters and the highly loyal fans of the show.

Despite pointing out the little pieces of weaknesses in both of the show it is important for me to say that both these shows are great and does what they are made to do very well, which is to cheer the audiences up and make their real lives a little more lively and enjoyble by entertaining them through cycles of emotions, romance, comedy and most importantly FRIENDSHIP.

Time for the verdict- Unlike many other great entities on the television, these two shows provide quality as well as quantity. But TBBT for me is better for being slimmer and smarter than HIMYM.

Whats Next for the Undertaker

The Undertaker- The dead man is in a true sense, the most grandest property that the WWE has today. He may not be active any more but still every WWE fan dreams of the lights going off and that signature music playing marking the presence of the most intimidating but yet loved character of the wrestling fraternity.

From the last 3-4 years, the Undertaker has only made appearances around Wrestle-mania to protecting his streak of being undefeated in every wrestle-mania he has been in. This year also, chances are very high that the Undertaker will give, which is likely to be his last performance for the WWE at Wrestle-mania 30 .

Obviously the occasion is grand so must be the opponent for the undertaker. Here the WWE can take two paths. One, they can have the same old concept of the Undertaker defeating yet another bad guy, who otherwise is unbeatable. To fulfill this path , there is only one option- Brock Lesner.

Or they can try and give a big send off for the Undertaker by letting him face the top superstar in the company- John Cena.

Both the scenarios are equally great. But for obvious reasons, a Lesner match will be more electrifying than a Cena match.

So there are very high chances of us seeing the Undertaker facing off against the beast Brock Lesner & more importantly Beating him (or maybe loosing?)

Sherlock vs Breaking Bad

Comparing Breaking Bad and Sherlock is far more difficult than comparing the lead characters of the two great shows. Sherlock Holmes of Sherlock is cleverer, smarter and simply put better than Walter White of Breaking Bad. But as I said, comparing the two shows is harder than comparing these two characters. This could only mean one thing that when you compare the rest part of these shows, the competition is really tough. Even one sided.

Breaking Bad

Sherlock

I've watched both of these shows completely. While Breaking Bad is clinically addictive, Sherlock is insanely awesome. It is absolutely right to say that Breaking Bad is way closer to reality than Sherlock, but why be close to reality when it is just a television show. The flow of story in Breaking Bad is better than Sherlock, Sherlock's stories does not need to connect with each other in continuity while Breaking Bad offers a flawless portrayal of person turning really-really bad. Sherlock focuses on its characters and the story revolves around them as the show takes many twists and turns making the hero win in all cases. On the other hand, the story of Breaking Bad governs the fate of the likability and importance of the characters. The hero of the show isn't always the one with which the audiences are. As is the name of the show, the lead character Walter White, turns really BAD, and by bad I mean you will hate what he does as the story opens up. Sherlock Holmes on the other hand being all bad ass and everything, is loved continuously and admired immensely by the audience.  

In short, Breaking Bad is like the main course of food which is complete and satisfying and Sherlock is like the desert in the end of a meal that leaves you shocked and thrilled. Breaking Bad being the main course generally goes with its considerable effect and yet unnoticed but the desert- Sherlock, gives you the time of your life and appeals you see it again and again as you are never quite satisfied.

My verdict- Breaking Bad is basically better than Sherlock because it doesn't uses the liberty of being a fiction by laughing at the face of reality and brings more to the table. In any case both shows are great .

How did Moriarity faked his death

For two years, those who were Sherlock-ed spent their most valuable time and filled up most of the memory space of their non existent and yet most desired mind palaces with theories of how Sherlock survived the fall. The makers of the show have done the most brutal things by not revealing how it was done but further depicting that something even more difficult and closer to the impossible happened at that same roof top . 

Jim Moriarty, the consulting criminal who shot his head off in front of Sherlock, returns. He is alive, going by the fact that nothing could be more awesome than him being alive. 

We thought for more than two years that Sherlock have beaten Moriarty, Hell he even beat death. But only to know that beating death is easier than beating Moriarty. We were forced to believe that neither of these two beautiful characters could bear an unfinished melody and hence were ready to kill themselves just to solve their final problem, but they were as they always have been, one step ahead of the audiences. 

Both of them must have figured out all the possible out comes that could transpire on the roof top of the hospital and had plans covering each aspect. But both of them underestimated (intentionally or unintentionally) each other and ignored the probability of the other one guessing their plan and arranging a defense for it. What I mean to say is that when Moriarty shot himself in the head, he must have thought that he leaves Sherlock with no choice but to commit suicide . But he didn't anticipated that Sherlock might also have imagined this scenario and must have had some counter for this too. The same thing goes with Sherlock, he also didn't anticipated that Moriarty can also fake his death and come back later on to finish the game. In any case, one has to admit that Moriarty's fake of death is better than Sherlock's. 

So now let me discus my theory of  " how he survived ?" 

Just to remind you all that throughout the episode, the Reinchenbach fall, people who shaked Sherlock's hands got shot . 

Remember those assassins who had to keep Sherlock alive so that they can get the computer code from him? Whenever any one of them saved Sherlock and shaked his hands they were shot. The same thing happened to Moriarty, In the last scenes he shakes Sherlock's hands and he is shot (by himself apparently). But this is what got me thinking, that all those assassins were instructed by Moriarty and obviously one of the instruction by Jim was to shoot anyone who comes near Sherlock (shakes his hands). So the important thing to note is that who ever shaked Sherlock' hands, was shot by someone else. What if we apply the same thing to Moriarty, what if his shaking hand with Sherlock was a signal for someone in the back building (or one of many snipers in the surrounding buildings) to shoot Moriarty in the back of his head with a fake bullet with a capsule containing blood. So what I am saying is that Moriarty's gun was empty it only made a sound and some one else shoot in the back of his head with a blood capsule and he fell down. We never knew whether there was any exit wound in the back of Moriarty's head. We just saw blood under it. On the other hand Sherlock didn't had the time to check as his friends were to die if he didn't jump at the earliest . 

Summing it up, Moriarty shaking hands with Sherlock and putting a gun in his mouth was a signal for his own sniper to shoot him with a fake bullet with a blood capsule in it, Moriarty's gun was empty and it only made the sound. He lied down with blood under his head but not any gun wound as there wasn't a real bullet. Hence he survived .

Getting Started

Hello everyone. Anyone? No one? C'mmon, there is got be someone? Oh hi, to you, yes you: the future me. At least you have come back to read this.

So this is the very first post on my blog. I have just started out my college. That should mean that I have decided what I am going to become in future and hence I am in a college studying Computer Science. But like many people , I've not ended up where I wanted to, I am merely doing what seems right. I guess the reason why people don't follow there dreams is that they don't want to take responsibility for the fate of their lives. In case things don't work out in future, they want to be able to have the option of blaming someone (generally parents) who suggested that profession to them. 

The same thing has seemingly happened to me, I wanted to be a scientist-writer and I think I still want to do that, but instead I have bowed down to the fear of flopping and followed something that others do and which in at least someway interests me. Hence computer science. 

My dream of being a writer is the thing that inspired me to start this blog. One of my hobby is to write creative stuff such as poems and fictional stories and philosophical insights to my life and read them after some while. This may sound a little pathetic but I enjoy it. Continuing that hobby and giving it a challenging twist is the motive behind this blog .

I hope it goes well so as to satisfy me and the life I am going to live despite most of my dreams.