Substructure Puns

Temperature loading has always been my kryptonite. I’ve never fully understood how to properly calculate bearing loads from temperature fluctuation. I’m looking for some guidance for a complete understanding.

Here’s the basics of what I understand:

• the movement induced by temperature can be calculated assuming linear thermal expansion.

Now here’s where things get tricky. I’ve seen some calcs that takes the stiffness of the bearing pads, and then back calculates the force required to displace the pads the calculated thermal difference. But I’ve also seen some people take into account the stiffness of the columns/bents. This reduces the loads placed on the bearing.

The next part I have questions about is the ‘contributing length’ that’s used in the thermal expansion calc. I’ve read a lot that reference a ‘point of no movement’ (PONM). For single span structures is this the total span length? Or if expansion/expansion is it length/2? For multi-span structures is it the distance between fixed bearings? I’m all over the place with this. Lol. I typically take a fairly conservative method when preparing these calcs but I want to have a better understanding.

Does anyone have any guidance, or references I can dive into that help explain this in detail? I’m open to personal experience explanations as well.

Thanks in advance!

For our group, there are multiple levels of joy in this game of interactive fiction, but as DM there are two things that are at the top of my list: 1) when a player/party has their character/members do something creative and cool and utterly unexpected; 2) putting together a solid narrative with various “mysteries” and fleshed-out NPCs that make the players want to keep going out of sheer interest. Number two is what keeps me happiest, and is the reason why I don’t mind putting in the work for our campaign.

But often when PC’s are in the middle of the story, they are focused on their own characters completing the tasks at hand and surviving whatever action they encounter. And for that reason, cool narrative hooks are often missed (heck, whole chunks of planned encounters may be bypassed simply by players choosing a different path). Additionally, not all NPCs are willing to engage the party, so players miss out on the details/motivations of some key characters that they must deal with.

So my question (really just a conversation starter) is: once the PCs have rescued the victim/found the artifact/killed the villain/saved the town/closed the portal etc…. Do you sit and talk about the meta-game details of the “living story” you’ve all just taken part in?

I love sharing the details with my players because they love hearing them. Why is the necromancer doing this particular thing? How did these magic boots get here? Who REALLY was that old lady NPC who gave them cryptic advice? Why didn’t your magic items work in that particular room? Who is the patron of the evil warlock you just defeated? How does this connect to previous sessions we’ve played, or to individual PC backstories?

We have just as much fun talking about the deeper details behind our sessions as we do playing them! Obviously in a larger and longer campaign, certain session details can’t be shared because they’d spoil upcoming episodes. But aside from that as a DM I love talking about the details of our shared story with the players! I’m curious of this happens with other groups?

Say I have 2,3-dimethylpyridine (SMILES: "n1c(C)c(C)ccc1"), and I want to select only the 3-methyl group via a SMARTS pattern using rdkit. The SMARTS pattern that I wrote is "[CX4H3][cX3;!$(c1nccccc1)]", which I intended to select a methyl group that is connected to an aromatic carbon but not ortho to an aromatic nitrogen.

>>> from rdkit import Chem
>>> pyr = Chem.MolFromSmiles("n1c(C)c(C)ccc1")
>>> me3 = Chem.MolFromSmarts("[CX4H3][cX3;!$(c1nccccc1)]")
>>> pyr.GetSubstructMatches(me3)
((2, 1), (4, 3))

When I run this code, I unfortunately get back both methyl groups, as you can see from the output. I've been staring at this pattern for over an hour, and I can't seem to get the logic right. This is a long shot, but I thought I'd try reddit to see if you have any ideas. Thanks in advance.

This is a small ground level deck, basically a small porch.

For the substructure, I connected the joists horizontally but I want the floorboards to run horizontally too, so I messed up. So can I just attach the floorboards to the joist spacers instead (which run vertically)? They are about 12 inches long, is that enough support?

https://ibb.co/M8JJ0Dj

Steps to solve a DP

1. Identify if it is a DP problem(Overlapping subproblems or Optimal Substructure)
2. Decide a state expression with the least parameters
3. Formulate state relationship(find a relation between previous states to reach the current state.)
4. Do tabulation (or add memoization

i've got the game recently and i have noticed whenever a load in any craft the substructures like turrets have to be built manually by my repair arms.

is this normal or is something wrong? it feels wrong as because you shouldn't have to wait around for so long just so the turrets materialize when you want to load a craft to test it.

So.. I'm building a deck and half of it will be overtop of an existing concrete slab. Can I attach the 4x4 posts with some sort of boot to the slab? I would imagine this would be ok and code (southern Ontario). The slab is about 8in thick.

What product(s) would I use to do this? I would imagine some kind of boot with tapcon (or similar) screws/anchors.

Hi, I would like to ask a question regarding substructure search in SciFinder-n. I am interested in excluding substructures that contain radicals when I perform substructure search of some substance. I have tried looking online in all of their available guides and webinars but it seems that they don't mention it anywhere. I would really appreciate if someone could provide an explanation on how to exclude radical containing structures when performing substructure search in SciFinder-n.

Thank you in advance.

Speaking of initializers, is this a GCC bug or is it my misunderstanding of the way things must be?

Let's make a struct with an array of sub-structs. Then we'll throw an initializer on that.

#include <stdio.h>

struct foo {
    int f1;
    int f2;
};

struct bar {
    struct foo f[10];
};

int main(void)
{
    struct bar b = {
        .f[0].f1=10,  // LINE A
        .f[0].f2=20,  // LINE B
    };

    printf("%d %d\n", b.f[0].f1, b.f[0].f2);
}

When I compile this, I get a warning about f2 not being initialized, though the output is 10 20, as expected.

The warning is especially funky because it's pointing right at the line where the initializer is, saying there's no initializer there.

$  gcc -Wall -Wextra -std=c18 -pedantic -o bar bar.c
bar.c: In function ‘main’:
bar.c:16:13: warning: missing initializer for field ‘f2’ of ‘struct foo’ [-Wmissing-field-initializers]
   16 |             .f[0].f2=20,  // LINE B
      |             ^
bar.c:5:13: note: ‘f2’ declared here
    5 |         int f2;
      |             ^~

$ ./bar
10 20

And here's the kicker, if I swap LINE A and LINE B, there's no warning:

    struct bar b = {
        .f[0].f2=20,  // LINE B
        .f[0].f1=10,  // LINE A
    };

And the output is 10 20, as expected.

Is there some initializer order requirement I'm unaware of, or is GCC just being weird?

(GCC 10.2.0.)

Journal of the American Chemical SocietyDOI: 10.1021/jacs.1c04251

Naoki Ando, Takuya Yamada, Hiroki Narita, Niels N. Oehlmann, Matthias Wagner, and Shigehiro Yamaguchi

https://ift.tt/2RFogwa

Graphitic carbon nitride (GCN) has drawn considerable interest since the discovery of its metal-free photocatalytic properties. The synthesis of a substructure of triazine-based GCN (Tz-GCN), azacalix[3]triazines, is reported. The material exhibits super strong basicity as well as anion-π interactions.

Abstract

Graphitic carbon nitride (GCN) has garnered broad research interest due to its unique catalytic properties. However, GCN, prepared by general methods, possesses myriad structural defects and it has been difficult to elucidate their intrinsic physical properties. We report the development of azacalix[3]triazines (AC3Ts), a substructure of triazine-based GCN (Tz-GCN). Despite the electron-deficient natures of triazine, AC3Ts capture protons as organic superbases. We reveal the unique anion-π interactions of AC3Ts that alters the ionization potentials of AC3Ts. To the best of our knowledge, these features have not yet been recognized for Tz-GCN. These unveiled features of AC3Ts are expected to expand the usage scope and possibilities for GCNs.

https://ift.tt/3xTlILm

Journal of the American Chemical SocietyDOI: 10.1021/jacs.1c00941

Kavish Kaup, Kevin Bishop, Abdeljalil Assoud, Jue Liu, and Linda F. Nazar

https://ift.tt/3333Y1J

Graphitic carbon nitride (GCN) has accepted broad research interest due to its unique catalytic properties. However, GCN, prepared by general methods, possess myriad structural defects and it has been difficult to elucidate their intrinsic physical properties. Here we report the development of azacalix[3]triazines (AC3Ts), a substructure of triazine‐based GCN (Tz‐GCN). Despite the electron‐deficient natures of triazine, AC3Ts capture protons as organic superbases. Furthermore, we also revealed the unique anion‐π interaction of AC3Ts that altered the ionization potentials of AC3Ts. To the best of our knowledge, these features have not yet been recognized for Tz‐GCN. These unveiled features of AC3Ts are expected to expand the scope and possibilities of GCNs.

https://ift.tt/3xTlILm