Sciencemadness Discussion Board

SM Forum Size and Influence

The Volatile Chemist - 26-5-2014 at 18:24

Excuse any typing errors or grammer issues, this is being typed on a tablet, and a small one at that.

This is all in partial humor, don't take me 100% seriously.
This forum has lots of users. Lots. Many people have important jobs in chemistry. This forum is also reputable, well known, and established in chemistry. Many organizations in the past have endeavored to set up standards in chemistry. But we have user base. We can set up nomenclature and naming systems, and have them used. I think it is time we set up standads for chemistry, to end confusion on this forum. Bleach shall be called sodium hypochlorite and be symbolized as NaClO, nothong else. We can set up standards in chemistry that will be followed.
Nathan

numos - 26-5-2014 at 18:32

Perhaps what you mean is to purge the use of "household" names? In which case I have to agree, because many "household chemicals" don't always contain the same chemical, eg. there are bleaches out there where the active ingredient is not NaOCl, and in those cases, "bleach" may not be specific enough.

The Volatile Chemist - 26-5-2014 at 18:45

Quote: Originally posted by numos  
Perhaps what you mean is to purge the use of "household" names? In which case I have to agree, because many "household chemicals" don't always contain the same chemical, eg. there are bleaches out there where the active ingredient is not NaOCl, and in those cases, "bleach" may not be specific enough.

Sorta:)
I meant the introduction of new names and systems. For example, acid naming is not standard at all. Bromic acid is considered fine, but chloric acid isn't. We should make standards of naming for places that are lacking, with out having to use stinky IUPAC names when not neccisary.

numos - 26-5-2014 at 19:12

Ugh, IUPACs are the worst, the substance loses all personality when labeled by one. What else... oh yes, they are a pain to pronounce because of their length.

smaerd - 26-5-2014 at 19:56

I agree with ya on IUPAC nomenclature being absolutely impractical for many compounds. For me a picture says a thousand words. If someone walked up to me and said, "Could I selectively alkylate the piperidyl amine of 4-[2-[4-(6-fluorobenzo[d]isoxazol-3-yl)-1-piperidyl]ethyl]-3-methyl-2,6-diazabicyclo[4.4.0]deca-1,3-dien-5-one with isopropyl chloride". My gut instinct would be to either laugh, or punch them in the neck.

If they drew this on a piece of scrap paper and pointed, then I'd talk.


Although about the OP, if you're thinking we should create our own nomenclature at sciencemadness for chemistry, I don't think it's really worth-while. Probably best to enforce clearly stated questions/suggestions, using images when possible, etc.

woelen - 26-5-2014 at 22:44

IUPAC naming indeed frequently is a pain in the *ss, but not always. Any formal name will be a real pain for more complicated compounds. The compound, shown in the previous post, will have a complicated name, whatever formal naming scheme is used. Only an informal name for this compound (e.g. one from historic origin, one from medicine or whatever source) will have a practical length.

The use of chemical names indeed is much better than the use of household names or use of street slang or use of vague acronyms. But we should not be zealous in this. It also depends on context.

Becoming of great influence outside of sciencemadness will be (nearly) impossible. Standards have been established long ago and are not easily changed, unless there really is a tremendous improvement, which can be made clear to many other people.

hissingnoise - 27-5-2014 at 01:47

Quote:
Bromic acid is considered fine, but chloric acid isn't.

Though quite unstable, chloric acid is the oxyacid equivalent of bromic acid and the name has equal validity . . .


The Volatile Chemist - 27-5-2014 at 03:15

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
Bromic acid is considered fine, but chloric acid isn't.

Though quite unstable, chloric acid is the oxyacid equivalent of bromic acid and the name has equal validity . . .

OK, I see.

Zyklon-A - 27-5-2014 at 06:14

New people on this forum won't read this thread before posting, and it would be very hard to inforce. It's a good idea, but I doubt it'll work the way you (and me and lots of others) want.
I like diagrams too, makes everything easy to understand and visualize.
Another thing, people should always mention oxidation states. Except in cases where only one oxidation state can exist, or was mentioned previously.
"[...] I put iron oxide[...]" isn't going to cut it.

AJKOER - 16-6-2014 at 19:14

If one decides that the purpose of chemistry is to employ existing knowledge and progress forward, renaming compounds should be limited and when performed, the old name should be cited as well. Else, historical observations could be lose thereby possibly retarding (not promoting) progress.

However, if the purpose is to align chemistry in the light of proper English or to facilate the sorting of chemical compound names, then, by all means, arrange everything in alphabetical order! Who cares if most of us are clueless as to exactly what compound someone is reporting on, as now the 'name' looks more proper.

aga - 17-6-2014 at 12:45

Name changing is what IUPAC wants.
Adding new names wont help much.

I still call ithe brown smelly stuff Poo.
The 'correct' name under any system is far too long.
Perhaps that is why toilet paper comes on a roll - so you can write what you wipe.