As a geographer, I think I understand flows within space very generally very well, even in abstract cases. A friend shared a video yesterday of my understanding of what was molecules in space flowing based off a stimuli. The actual reaction is officially called Free Radicalisation Polymerisation. The lifecycle follows:
Initiation
Propagation
Deactivation
via termination --> combination || disproportionation
via chain transfer --> re-initiation
The result of this process is a sort of material.
Beginning with a monomer, or a molecule that can attach to other like molecules, through its pi bond. The pi bond is a double bond, so I'm under the impression that its single bonds to other molecules. The monomer's double bond is comfortable and needs some sort of stimulation for their double bonds to split and attach to other monomers. This stimulation is known as an Initiator. During Initiation, the bonded Initiator splits from itself and seeks to bond with monomers.
When the monomer links to the Initiator, its pi bond splits, leaving one linked to the initiator and then the other one free to attach to another monomer. As this process of Propagation continues, it creates a polymer chain. A polymer is multiple monomers linked together.
Deactivation is
Chains only build on one side because the Initiator only had one bond to attach with. When the Initiator links to the first monomer, it looks like this:
O- =O
O-O-
The chain grows by attaching the open bond to a monomer with a sigma bond. I am not sure how it breaks the double bond in the first place though.
O-O- =O
O-O-O-
Combination occurs when a polymer chain links with another polymer chain:
O-O-O- -O-O-O-O
From the diagram above, neither end has an open bond for further attachment, thus ending the polymer's growth.
There can be instances when the polymer chains don't link to each other. Instead, the molecules “swap” and then close off because they have reached what I assume to be a sort of equilibrium.
H H
| |
O-O- -O-O
| |
H H
H H
| |
O=O H-O-O
|
H
The chain bonds to part of another stimuli, completing the chain. This stimuli can be another monomer, solvent, other molecule or a polymer chain. The other half of this stimul is now free to bond to another monomer. This is re-initiation, and thus goes through propagation again until the reaction has finished.
I'm most interested in how deactivation works. In layman terms, what causes a flow to cease is the introduction of a state of equilibrium. What does it mean to be in a state of equilibrium? For molecules, it seems quite simple, for their positive and negative charges to be balanced and for bonds to, well, bond.
But what does it mean for other systems? Specifically, can we imply this state of binary positive and negative to other areas? Is a balance of neutrality desired? Is balancing positives and negatives an ideal situation? Or, should we seek for an instance of full positives and therefore drown states wrought of negatives? But at what cost?
What is positive and what is negative is not quite so clear in other systems than it is with molecules, where the states are binary forms of attraction. In de jure politics, I think there is benefit to having different views that come out as near neutrality. While there is a high chance of gridlock, what can come out of the discussion and proper debates to best represent the population and balancing its desires and well being is ideal. This same concept can be applied to design work. If everyone working on the product thinks the same way, then something can get shipped without comprehensive critique and is then not suitable for a general population. Apple was recently under fire for this because the team of designers and engineers working on face recognition didn't align with users, there were issues with too much generality when recognising faces of people of African descent. For topics on controversy, it's conceivable that neutrality is an ideal situation.
While differences may bring out healthy discussion and a more comprehensive result, it is hardly in a person or community's best interest to be uncomfortable. If we take the case of a block in San Francisco, which typically has many people living in an apartment and also on the curb. Who are we to say that a person on the curb is a negative? Perhaps some actions can be perceived as negative, such as urination on the side of the building. In this sense, the apartment tenants may desire to have their street not have people living on the curb. This then begs another question: is it always the goal to segregate by comfortability? I think this is an accurate point of view on micro (individual) and macro (population) scales. Whether or not this is a correct point of view to have is a question of ethics.
To reply you need to sign in.