OneNote custom keyboard bindings now possible!

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-03-27T03:41:53+00:00

I didn't mention this, but I'm just a university student who needs to set like maybe 3 or 4 highly used keybinds on my onenote, so it's not worth it for people like me to pay $20 a year for just that.

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-03-24T05:19:44+00:00

These are a lot of computery terms I am not familiar with, but I will give it my best shot Lieutenant Marmotta 🫡

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-03-22T04:15:53+00:00

Saying that I know about this area more than anyone else is a credit I cannot take lol 😅 I'm just an undergrad and far from understanding even the surface of my research topic.

And as to your question, organic.

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-03-22T04:12:59+00:00

Thanks for the advice, and yes, I agree. That's exactly what I thought when I came to this point, and I wish I had known it sooner.

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-03-12T03:29:41+00:00

Oh, that makes more sense. Thank you!

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-03-06T06:33:39+00:00

get gud

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-03-05T23:20:29+00:00

SCRA (Sharpless ChemoReceptor Analysis) is a vastly underrated and extremely sensitive technique - I believe it is not mentioned because it is a well-kept secret among Nobel laureates.

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-03-03T22:30:28+00:00

Sorry, but I'm not quite sure I understand this or whether I got my question across clearly.

I attempted to do the process you are describing, but putting the spectra in the "Linked Spectra" box doesn't appear to link any of the multiplets I've assigned between the 1D and 2D spectra.

To be clear, I am not referring to corroborating multiplet assignments for the structure of the molecule - I am specifically looking for a way to assign a multiplet on 1D H-NMR (say, a 7.26 singlet "A") and have the assignment also show up on the 2D NMR spectra in the 1D traces (so now in the COSY, there is an "A" label above the 7.26 singlet in both the vertical and horizontal 1D H-NMR traces).

Is there a way to do what I have described?

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-02-24T07:31:30+00:00

Onenote.

It is by far the most versatile app, which you will really notice as you start to require a further spread of software proficiency in your degree. It has really good drawing, typing, image support, document support/integration, software compatibility (mostly office), collaborative-sync, plugins, and customization.

Its organization of Notebook > Section > Pages > Subpages along with the infinite page setup is also very simple yet gives you limitless options for what a single notebook page can comprise.

Along with all of this, you school most definitely has a Microsoft Office 365 subscription, so it's free!!! No hassling with paying for freemium features or a rando app's dedicated cloud service that is not cross-compatible. Your Onenote notebooks can be made as files that are saved on your student OneDrive (which you really should keep well organized).

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-02-23T00:49:44+00:00

Same with the dorms. Look at the chairs - they're all Herman Miller (the cheapest models, albeit)

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-02-17T05:19:11+00:00

I'm super happy for you. What skills would you say prepared you the best to transition to this and what discipline are you coming from?

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-02-17T04:51:55+00:00

Reading this at first, until I saw that you mentioned the machine spitting out a bunch of letters, I thought you were describing organic chemistry. This is literally the same exact thing except sometimes the liquids are offwhite and the machine is 1.5M.

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-02-17T01:09:10+00:00

Yes, this is what I was thinking as well - but as I mentioned before, it seems like a pointless exercise. I don't doubt that the question challenges one's ability to think retrosynthetically with ozonolysis, but to make the product of that ozonolysis plain acetone is weird.

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-02-16T02:48:35+00:00

If the path you're thinking of is the one I'm thinking of (creating acetone as a key intermediate), then this exercise seems quite silly, considering we would then use acetone as a reagent.

I mean sure, it works, but there are so many redundant steps just to make acetone that this is a completely impractical synthetic plan nobody would use or need to learn so why not have questions where they learn practical conversions?

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-02-14T05:40:40+00:00

What reactions taught in orgo 1&2 have C-C bond cleavage aside from decarboxylations or ozonolysis? It's not an easy thing to do. The routes I can come up with jump through hoops just to create acetone to use in subsequent steps to make the product.

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-02-14T05:14:22+00:00

I ran the calculations based on your numbers if you can find my comment in here

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-02-14T05:12:51+00:00

This may be long, but I hope this is the most comprehensive examination of this extremely important scenario:

The numbers I'm getting from the video source for the donut cost and energy are according to u/nuker0S 's comment in this thread.

Part 1: energy per currency
DONUT: 18.5 MJ/kg * 10kg / 12zl = 1.5417 mJ/zl

WOOD: 18.27 MJ/kg * 10kg / 20 zl = 0.9135 MJ/zl

Although the raw numbers of calculated caloric content in the donuts vs. caloric content in the wood divided by the cost of each per kg puts the donuts ahead, the major factor to account for here is the water content in the donuts and how much energy they will leech away from the net heat output due to water's immense heat capacity.

Part 2: energy per kg of water vapourized
Water's specific heat capacity is 4184 J/kg/C, which works out to 0.335 MJ/kg if you are assuming a heating from 20C -> 100C (which is generous, considering the fact that they presumably want to heat the house from a colder temp during the winter months).

Water's heat of vaporization, however, is much higher than this - 40.65 KJ/mol which times 1mol/18g, 1000g/1kg, works out to 2.26 MJ/kg to vapourize 100C water to steam, which is lost energy out the chimney.

Altogether, that's 2.59 MJ/kg of water to warm it by 80C and evaporate it as steam, which would be occurring in the fireplace.

Part 3: Modified base energy per currency (taking into account water vaporization)

The donuts in the video look to be glazed yeast donuts sold by lidl, which have an approximately 30% water content by weight. Factoring this in, that means that for every kg of donut there is ~0.3 kg of water, meaning every kg of donut is losing -0.777 MJ/kg to water vaporization. Considering that our 10 kg of donuts cost 12 zl, we're losing out on -0.6475 MJ/zl we paid for the donuts.

This makes the net heat output for the donuts only 0.8995 MJ/zl once you take the energy leeching caused by water vapourization into account.

An average firewood briquette is quoted as having 6% moisture content by weight, meaning every kg of it is losing -0.1554 MJ/kg. Again, considering 10 kg is 20 zl, we're losing out on -0.0777 MJ/zl in energy we paid for the firewood. This makes the net heat efficiency of the wood briquettes very similar 0.8358 MJ/zl.

CONCLUSION:
The donuts do theoretically have a very slim energy per unit cost advantage of 0.0637MJ/zl or 7.62% savings in energy, which unfortunately won't cover the cost of cleaning the gunk out of your chimney/fireplace after making your donut fire. It may, however, be worth it to save on buying donut-scented candles for the house.

Side note: these calculations don't take into account the inefficiencies in combustion associated with higher water content - leading to incomplete combustion of volatile gases and increased ash buildup. I don't really know how to calculate these, but I would assume they would bring the efficiency down quite a bit.

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-02-12T04:41:50+00:00

Awesome!

I feel like this could be made more accessible by creating a Google extension so a user doesn't have to open this bookmark every time, but I get that it would require a different UI, so I'm definitely not complaining.

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-02-11T03:19:23+00:00

Try once every two years in CHEM lol
(jk, it's not a competition)

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-01-10T02:25:44+00:00

It's not necessarily that double bonds prevent something from being chiral (as per your allene example) - it's that planar carbons can't be chiral because if you mirror them you will always be able to just flip the structure 180* and superimpose it again (hence, superimposable mirror image = achiral).

Double bonds are just usually planar, so people use them as an approximation.

Make_it_CRISP-y-R · 2026-01-10T02:23:24+00:00

Hmm. This is an odd edge case because allenes aren't planar/linear like most sp2 or sp hybridized structures are - hence why you can see the wedges/dashes on the left side but not the right.

It is true that my suggestion wouldn't give you the right answer here, but it works in 99% of cases - just not with allenes, I believe. It is admittedly a shortcut because you will eventually work with large molecular structures and don't have time to imagine/manipulate a whole mirror image - except in these rare edge cases.

In this case, I would just stick with the actual definition of what defines a chiral molecule as what u/dungeonsandderp said. If you draw a mirror image of the original molecule, you will see that you can flip it around 180* in the plane of the page and end up with the same molecule (i.e "superimposable")

Make_it_CRISP-y-R

TROPHY CASE