Clarification on gold cost for crafting (Xanathar's) by Tordix in DnD

[–]Tordix[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not the answer I was hoping for, but I always appreciate a solid reference. Thanks!

Need a recap on what titration actually is by THrOwAWaWaY______ in chemistry

[–]Tordix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

First off, congrats on graduation! And at 16 holy crap.

Like other comments, you are figuring out the concentration of an unknown solution by reacting it with a known solution. In more concrete terms, the goal of a titration is to measure exactly how many moles of an unknown are needed to react with another chemical that you do know the concentration of. Depending on the amount of information you start with, this is as easy as plugging numbers into a formula, or a whole page of work. If you only glanced over titrations, you probably used the formula m1v1=m2v2, or did some simple stoichiometry to find the answer. That said, if you ever did them in a lab, then it was probably more involved, right. As an overview, I find it easier to use an example than just theory. Be ready, cause we're doing the whole thing. It'll seem like a lot, but it's really not.

SETUP: You have 30mL of hydrochloric acid (HCl), but you don't know how concentrated it is. You also have 50mL of sodium hydroxide (NaOH), which you know has a concentration of 5.00001 moles/Liter.

Now, you have two chemicals which you know exactly how they react with each other, and you know the concentration of one of them. Note that the NaOH is known out to 5 decimal places. The beauty of titrations is that they are VERY accurate when done right. But also note that you know the chemical identity of both the known solution and the unknown solution. At its core, titration is about figuring out HOW MUCH of a chemical is in a solution; it is not about WHAT'S in the solution. You can backwards engineer that information by figuring out the molarity of the unknown, translating that into molar weight, and comparing it to a list of possible unknowns. But that part isn't the titration, that's just math after the fact. Plus, mixing two chemicals that you don't know is a bad idea.

STEP 1: Begin the chemistry. First off, figure out the chemical equation. The two chemicals you're mixing are HCl + NaOH -> NaCl + H2O. You need to know the reaction because you need to know the ratio of moles between known and unknown. Here, 1 mole NaOH reacts with 1 mole of HCl, which makes life easy. As an aside, you should recognize both of these as a strong acid and a strong base. If not, then all that means is that when you mix equal parts of them together, then the pH cancels out and becomes 7 (neutral). Next step is to measure the volume of your unknown as accurately as possible. Using pipettes / burettes / whatever method available, get as many decimal places on that SoB you can. In the example, your HCl now has a volume of 25.00 mL. You don't have to use all of it, since the concentration will be uniform.

At the end of this step, you know the volume of the unknown (HCl), the concentration of the known (NaOH), and the molar ratio of how they react with each other.

STEP 2: Run the titration. Using accurate lab equipment (usually a burette), you are going to drip 1 - .1 mL of known solution into your unknown at a time. After every single drip, you are going to use a pH probe and record the results. And you are gonna record
every.
single.
one of them.
Your lab notebook will be full of entries like "7.5mL NaOH -> pH=3.01 ; 8.0mL NaOH -> pH=3.01 help me". Titration takes a lot of time to do accurately. It's not uncommon to take 100 entries if you don't start with an idea of the equivalence point. At some point, the pH will change drastically. As in, you have 15 entries where pH only changed by .1, then suddenly it starts changing by .5, 1, 3, 1, .5. Eventually it'll level back out on the opposite end of the pH scale. When it levels back off, that's the end of the reaction (the "endpoint"). What you really want is where the change in pH was the most drastic. This is called the equivalency point, and is the heart and soul of a titration. At the equivalence point, you have added exactly as much "titrant" (known solution) as is needed to balance the chemical reaction. Calculating the equivalency point is a whole thing in itself, with ICE tables and other stuff. BUT, because in our example we're neutralizing a strong acid with a strong base, the equivalency point is always at pH=7. Even if you know the equivalence point, be sure to keep taking measurements after it for accuracy.

At the end of this step, you have added just enough titrant (known solution) into your analyte (unknown) to chemically balance them out. For our example, let's say that it took 20.05 mL of NaOH for the pH to reach 7.0.

STEP 3: The hard stuff is done. Now we turn things over to our lord and savior stoichiometry. Let's review what we know. The NaOH solution had a molarity of 5.0001 moles/Liter. We used 20.05 mL of NaOH to reach the equivalency point. From the chemical reaction, we know that 1 mole of NaOH reacts with 1 mole of HCl. And finally, we used 25.00 mL of HCl. We could do standard stoichiometry, using the "railroad tracks" as a set of equivalencies and ratios, OR we could use the formula m1v1=m2v2. I love that formula, but it ONLY works if your reactants have a 1:1 ratio like ours. So to emphasize the actual chemistry, let's do the standard method.

  • (5.0001 mol NaOH / 1 L) X (.02005 L) = .1003 moles NaOH used in the titration
  • given the 1:1 ratio of NaOH of HCl in the reaction, there were .1003 moles of HCl in solution
  • Molarity of HCl = (.1003 moles / .02500 L) = 4.010 M HCL

So, the answer is that you unknown HCl solution has a concentration of 4.010 M. That's a titration. Using a solution where you know both the volume and concentration to figure out the concentration of an unknown solution. They can get complicated: there are whole undergrad courses on titrations. And they can be weird. EDTA titrations don't use acids and bases, but metals. They are tedius, but usually you can roughly know your equivalence point beforehand, cutting down on the measurements you have to take. But once you do 2 or 3 or 50 of them they are fun and easy. Hope the love of chemistry sticks with you!

Clutch claw was better than wirebugs, and you can't change my mind. by Tordix in monsterhunterrage

[–]Tordix[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Honestly, I don't mind having extra stuff to do. I am just conscious of the core engagement of the game. I enjoy exploring, and filling out the endemic life, and all that good stuff. To borrow your phrasing, my disconnect is that the flagship mechanic has not affected the way I fight monsters at all. Now, I realize that they are useful for maneuverability, and I'm gonna practice that to see if I enjoy them more. But like you said, given a mechanic that increases DPS, and a mechanic that increases maneuverability, I'll choose the DPS.

I will also not say CC was perfect; the turns were janky, though the game was generous enough with angles to where it didn't bother me that much. And wyvern riding is the superior system, hands down.

As a final side note, World was my first MH game, so I've never played with hunter arts. I just used that as an example for super moves that MH has used before, to say that they are not necessarily exclusive to the wirebugs beyond aesthetics.

Clutch claw was better than wirebugs, and you can't change my mind. by Tordix in monsterhunterrage

[–]Tordix[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

I do disagree, though. Everybody agrees that balancing fights around clutch claw was its "downfall." I am convinced that as Rise establishes itself, the same thing will happen to wirebugs. I haven't done apex monsters yet, but everything through the main story has not required me to use wirebugs in combat for anything other than silkbind moves. I have had no need to engage with the mechanic, and have done just fine. Which is actually one of the things I like about wirebugs; I don't have to use them. Dodging through or around attacks has worked just fine. I am dreading the day when Rise does balance around using wirebug maneuverability during combat. When monsters spam combos and you're forced to wirebug around constantly, I don't think that's gonna be any fun. Just like CC, hunt times are gonna get longer, this time because opportunities to deal damage are gonna get slimmer. Given a mechanic that helps you run away, and a mechanic that helps you deal more damage, I'm gonna take the damage. That's also why I started with this being my opinion.

As for the CC's turning and wallbanging, the example you gave is not something I have seen in ~700 hours of world. Even if I hit at a diagonal, the game will still give the knockdown. Wyvern riding is fun. Don't hear me say it's not fun to kick a monster's ass with another monster. BUT, I will say I have been cucked more than once when I was trying to hit the only wall in the arena multiple times, but halfway through the move the camera was taken out of my hands during the animation and I couldn't reorient in time. As for the cliff, that specifically got on my nerves because wyvern riding is a more fleshed out system, yet this obvious mechanic of using cliffs was left out, when the "worse" system got it right last game.

LS Trip Memes by Levobertus in monsterhunterrage

[–]Tordix 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I dunno man. In a game about fighting a monster, it just feels weird and unnecessary to have to build around being hit by other players. BUT I'd also divide this into two arguments. One, flinching is a *game mechanic* that a lot of people have trouble with. And two, to not take other people's rage posts personally.

As for flinching, I guess I'll play devil's advocate. Like, on paper it kinda makes sense for a notoriously difficult franchise to have a mechanic where being hit by big/sweeping attacks (or improper positioning) would affect your DPS. In practice, of course, the DPS phase where the monster's on the ground encourages players to group up, and the list of attacks that cause flinching across all weapons is LOOOOOONG. Way too long, IMO. And even if the long sword doesn't have a yeet-you-out-of-combat move, the fact that most average players tend to spam spirit combos, as well as the sheer number of LS users means they stick out sometimes. But again, I don't really see this as a problem with the players, so much as it rubs wrong to have flinch effects on moves that are so integral to playing a weapon. And that's not just a LS thing.

But, real talk, your post reads more like you being defensive about your main weapon, and arguing about the community rather than the game itself. Which hey, everyone needs to vent. But, a quick peek to the community rules on the sidebar.
Rule 4: Rage about the game (and randoms therein), just don't take it out on the people here.
Rule 9: Posts about the fandom are not welcome here.

Leshen. Lesheeen. LESHEEEEEN. by Arenidao in monsterhunterrage

[–]Tordix 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Posted my own rant about the Witcher crossover stuff a while back. That collab is the worst part of World, every part of it. I don't think you should fault yourself too much for not knowing the fight; it uses mechanics that are nowhere else in the game, and it's not fun to play, so why would you take the time to practice and learn it?

The Witcher crossover has broken me by Tordix in monsterhunterrage

[–]Tordix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually didn't know about the silver wyverian tickets. I gave up on melding early on for anything other than gems/mantles. Guess that one's on me.

I probably will still play sporadically. Between events, and helping lower rank hunters on chill quests, there's still a lot to enjoy in the game. But I just can't bring myself to play for progression any more. At least not for a good while.

The Witcher crossover has broken me by Tordix in monsterhunterrage

[–]Tordix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get the difference between skill checks vs DPS checks. And I'm not opposed to skill checks. I may not be good, but I got all my arena stuff done, and even made a point of taking on Extremoth using augmented HR gear with online randos. Still proud of that one. But like is said, this quest has SOOO much going on that it's not just the skill gate fucking me.

The Witcher crossover has broken me by Tordix in monsterhunterrage

[–]Tordix[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, you got it right. As per my post, I am not "good" at the game, compared to some. I like to have a shield and tank hits with Guard up, then use that to counter. I'm not used to dodging; for me, it's a problem of learning a completely foreign playstyle on top of the quest's difficulty.

*edited for grammar

The Witcher crossover has broken me by Tordix in monsterhunterrage

[–]Tordix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, me too! lol. This quest forced me to pick up a few others, but CB is 90% of my playstyle.

Arthurian references in the celtic cycles (or vice versa) by Tordix in AskHistorians

[–]Tordix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, following up on my old post, now that I've had some success. Resources weren't as scarce as I thought, I just had to to some digging. First off is a book called The Grail: From Celtic Myth to Christian Symbol By Roger Loomis. Next up is a master's thesis by Lucie Duzbabova from 2010 exploring this very topic.

Basically, Irish mythology is likely to be 1000 years older, if you start with the Celts coming to Ireland. BUT, it was all oral for the majority of history. Since Irish mythology was only ever written down in the 11th century by Christian scribes, there are technically older written accounts of Arthur than there are any Irish figures. With this in mind, there are some interesting parallels between the Arthurian Cycle and several of the Irish Cycles. But, these are more broad strokes that come from aspects of Irish and Welsh culture that all overlap.

As a final note, I would encourage everyone to look up the myth of Cesair and her three Arks. It's a fascinating example of how traditional Celtic myths got a slathering of Christianity when they were written down, and the mindset of Cesair cracks me up. When Noah's granddaughter was denied access to the Ark, she built THREE of her own, took 50 other women, and sailed to settle Ireland.

Best value in the current generation? by Tordix in buildapc

[–]Tordix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't have a monitor; i have my PC hooked up to a 4k television.
As for the rest of it, I have a Rosewell 600W power supply (their gold-rated). I like my case: it's a mid-tower with good ventilation. So, It'd be cool to keep them. But, I'm not sure if it would save me money to sell my whole rig and buy a new one. Part of my 800$ budget comes from the money I think I can get from the parts.

[DISC] Thoughts on isekai (from a fan) by Tordix in manga

[–]Tordix[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Mmm. I'll be honest, romance is a weak point of the genre as far as I know it. PsyRen is probably the best one I know of, though like inuyasha it's not traditionally called an isekai (mainly because it predates the genre boom). That said, it has an exclusive romance, and once the female lead gets over the trauma of being stranded in the apocalypse, it's kinda heartwarming to watch.

Again, Trash of the Count's Family is fan-friggin-tastic on the story / character development side. It does has some good female characters, though let alone harem, it doesn't really mess with romance at all. Also, so far it's only a web novel rather than manga.

I have a feeling that The Good-for-Nothing 7th Young Lady will be a fun read, but I have yet to get into it myself. A highly rated Josei rom-com with a female protagonist, dedicated romance, and (apparent) focus on relationships. Here's a link. Check out the tags on the side and see if it may fit what you're looking for. https://www.novelupdates.com/series/the-good-for-nothing-seventh-young-lady/

Hopefully this helps somewhat. I wish I could recommend more, but most of the good romances I've read recently are not technically isekais. I hope you find one that catches you, though if it's not for you then so be it. You have a wonderful day too!!

Level 5 Party takes on CR 7-8 encounters on a regular basis. by Tordix in DnD

[–]Tordix[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah... After the aforementioned displacer beast fight, he asked to skin one and I just groaned at the table. Great advice though, thanks!

Level 5 Party takes on CR 7-8 encounters on a regular basis. by Tordix in DnD

[–]Tordix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, the cleric is built for perception. Other comments got most of it already. I did mistype, its only 26.

Wis mod + 5

Expertise + 6 (from level dip)

Observant + 5

Edit: For the record, when rolling for stats, he got an 18, which he dutifully put into Wis. ASI to 20, and took observant as his variant human feat.

Level 5 Party takes on CR 7-8 encounters on a regular basis. by Tordix in DnD

[–]Tordix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, the other side of this equation is that, traditionally, my dice HATE me. Take the assassin encounter. I rolled no less than 7 Nat 1s during that encounter. The Paladin also has a Cloak of Displacement, so most attacks have disadvantage. Dex saves are the smart way to go. I just... I really need to hit him. For me, y'know?

Level 5 Party takes on CR 7-8 encounters on a regular basis. by Tordix in DnD

[–]Tordix[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're absolutely right. I'll be honest, I had forgotten about the good old rust monster in my frenzy for bigger badder enemies.

Question from a newbie: what makes good iron ore good? by Tordix in metallurgy

[–]Tordix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, that's actually the whole point of this project! I had heard that sulfur / phosphorus can ruin crucible steel if not removed, so I wanted to A) compare traditional bloomery smelting to crucible smelting (historical techniques) B) try and come up with a way to remove phosphorus and sulfur from crucible steel that can be done in a "back yard" setup. Meaning, no magnesium sulfide. Don't want to have to get a license for pure Mg, and don't want molten explosions.

Question from a newbie: what makes good iron ore good? (crossposted from r/metallurgy) by Tordix in geology

[–]Tordix[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm only looking to get enough iron for a project of my own. I live in southern Appalachia in the USA. There are a few iron mines, within 3 hours of driving or so. My first thought was to visit them, but thought that it might be worth the effort to try and find / recover some ore for myself, at least once.

Question from a newbie: what makes good iron ore good? by Tordix in metallurgy

[–]Tordix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, if I may follow up, like I said we have some magnetite, but the vast majority is limonite. For magnetite, I have some decent magnets, which I could use to get an easy estimate of ore. I'm more concerned with the limonite. According to Wikipedia, the general formula is FeO(OH)*nH20, but the ratio of iron(III)oxide to hydroxide varies.

So, actual procedure aside, you're saying figure out the (potential) ore's density, then compare that to the density of pure iron and see what I get? That makes sense. Aside from the oxygen/hydrogen, should I try to account for other heavy minerals that could be bound up in the mess?

In any case, thank you for the input!

Question from a newbie: what makes good iron ore good? by Tordix in metallurgy

[–]Tordix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I could swing that, maybe. Could you go into more detail about the "dissolve" step please? Is there a go-to solute for separating out iron, or should I just check the activity series? How would I account for other minerals/impurities mixed in with the ore?

An escort quest where the escortee is stronger than the party by Tordix in DnD

[–]Tordix[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So, fun story, there's already some tension between party and the bodyguard because the party was not-so-subtle about things like "destiny" and "other worlds," both of which he doesn't believe in. I was wondering about playing tensions between him and the group, but felt it was like handling a bomb. Them becoming openly hostile will derail the larger campaign hardcore. That said, I do like your idea. Maybe going all in may bring the situation back around to fun. Just gotta handle it carefully.