Subject: Thanks.
Author:
Posted on: 2019-07-14 21:49:00 UTC
It isn't mercury; M stands for metal cations in general, as X stands for halogens in general.
I have not decided whether the chemical alluded to is accidentally produced on-screen or off; it depends if I find the right lousy crossover or not.
What would you call a small, lively organometallic thiol of the formula M(CH3)CH2SH? Methyl[name of metal] methanethiol?
So let's have a look. (CH2SH)- is going to want to bond to the metal through the sulfur, which means what you'll actually get is CH3S-M-CH3.
With just the thiol, that compound would be the salt [metal] methanethiolate, but we've got two ligands. According to this, you always put the ligands first, and always alphabetically - so you end up with methanethiolatomethylmetal.
Except that's a horrid name, and very difficult to parse. I would suggest injecting a mono-, to give methanethiolatomonomethyl[metal].
That's still pretty horrible; can we clean it up any? Well, Wikipedia allows for methanethiol to be called both methylthiol, and methiol. Methiomethyl[metal] has a lovely ring to it, particularly if you manage to stick them on mercury (I can only imagine how horrifying methiomethylmercury would be!). If forced to give it a useable systematic name, I'd probably go for that.
The forula would be, as you say, [M(CH3)(SCH3)]. And if you do use it with mercury, a) what are you DOING?!?!?!, and b) you should probably call it methyl mercaptan (and the complex mercaptomethylmonomethylmercury), because 'mercaptan' comes from thiols' propensity for mercury capture. Apparently.
hS
It isn't mercury; M stands for metal cations in general, as X stands for halogens in general.
I have not decided whether the chemical alluded to is accidentally produced on-screen or off; it depends if I find the right lousy crossover or not.
That's an extremely specific chemical compound you've got there. What badfic scenario could result in something that precise being produced by accident?
~Neshomeh
The premature introduction of logic in an HP/LotR crossover throws a wrench in a Suvian's attempt to brew a potion in Imladris.
That's a very noisome and incendiary (metaphorical) wrench.
Just be aware that it's bad form to force a reading onto a text that doesn't support it, even if the text is a badfic. I'm having a hard time imagining how the equation "generic HP-esque magical potion ingredients" plus "logic" equals "extremely specific explosive chemicals" and not just, say, "bad tea, possibly toxic; don't drink it." That's why it's better to start with the text, then come up with the jokes, not the other way around. Humorous extrapolation from the text is good fun; crowbarring a preexisting whim of the author into the text is dishonest and unfair, and may cost you your audience's faith in you as a critic.
TL;DR: Please don't try too hard to make this or any other joke happen at the expense of a fair(ish) reading.
~Neshomeh
Or at least to re-imagine the scenario with less specific requirements.
If what you want is a situation where "badfic" + "logic" = "boom," there are any number of ways that could happen without introducing super-specific chemistry into a fantasy world, and with the premise loose enough, you might even find something that works to set it up in the wild. Just don't force it.
Or, if what you really want is "super-specific chemistry goes boom," the PPC has a science department and people who are happy to tinker with dangerous substances at the expense of their eyebrows. If you can think of a reason why someone in HQ would be doing this specific thing, having it be something that happened in HQ is another option. But, again, there's no reason to force this into existence. "Chemistry goes boom" works as a premise without necessarily getting into the exact formula.
OTOH, I can see someone in HQ taking a chemistry joke and trying to make it work, with hilarious consequences. Anyone know any good chemistry jokes?
~Neshomeh