Rattata2
Harmless
Posts: 35
Registered: 22-6-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Penicillin from acetanilide??
Scanning randomly through wiki, I found a note on acetanilide that states it is used as a precursor to penicillin..but haha those compounds do not
look very familiar at all. So now I'm curious - anybody know the industrial route used to obtain penicillin from acetanilide? Can't seem to find any
papers or anything like that.
If not all well, it just caught my interest 
|
|
|
Picric-A
National Hazard
Posts: 796
Registered: 1-5-2008
Location: England
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fuming
|
|
Sounds like a bacterial fermentation of acetanilide to produce penecilin to me 
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
I think maybe someone confused penicillin with sulfanilamide, another antimicrobial agent from that era.
Synthesis of sulfanilamide
A classic method of Synthesis of penicillin is that of Henery-Logan, who taught me organic chemistry. He is not to blame for the low yield of product in my case.
|
|
|
Nicodem
Super Moderator
Posts: 4230
Registered: 28-12-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
If you check the reference given in that Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetanilide) you will see there is no mention of penicillin in that document and that the author of the "Acetanilide
is used as a precursor in the synthesis of penicillin and other pharmaceuticals" claim either made an error or cited the wrong source.
Lesson to learn: Always verify claims from Wikipedia even when supported by a reference!
Rhetorical question: What is this obsession on using Wikipedia as a source of information? It is barely any better than asking your neighbour. Don't
people use libraries any more? If not, then how about using books as fuel and burn them all?
…there is a human touch of the cultist “believer” in every theorist that he must struggle against as being
unworthy of the scientist. Some of the greatest men of science have publicly repudiated a theory which earlier they hotly defended. In this lies their
scientific temper, not in the scientific defense of the theory. - Weston La Barre (Ghost Dance, 1972)
Read the The ScienceMadness Guidelines!
|
|
|
ScienceSquirrel
International Hazard
Posts: 1863
Registered: 18-6-2008
Location: Brittany
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dogs are pets but cats are little furry humans with four feet and self determination! 
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Nicodem  | If you check the reference given in that Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetanilide) you will see there is no mention of penicillin in that document and that the author of the "Acetanilide
is used as a precursor in the synthesis of penicillin and other pharmaceuticals" claim either made an error or cited the wrong source.
Lesson to learn: Always verify claims from Wikipedia even when supported by a reference!
Rhetorical question: What is this obsession on using Wikipedia as a source of information? It is barely any better than asking your neighbour. Don't
people use libraries any more? If not, then how about using books as fuel and burn them all? |
I think that is a little harsh.
Obviously Wikipedia is a secondary source and requires a little care when you are using it.
But that is just like other encyclopedias and dare we say it textbooks when it comes to the fact that it does contain errors.
But it is very useful as a quick look up if you suddenly need to know the properties of liquid oxygen or a quick crib on ferromagnetism for example.
|
|
|
Nicodem
Super Moderator
Posts: 4230
Registered: 28-12-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It is harsh because I want it to sound harsh. It is not about errors here and there - even the primary literature is full of errors. The reason is in
that Wikipedia is often used by exactly those who should avoid its use, the beginners. We see quite often questions where a single claim from a
Wikipedia entry is either put forward as truth, or at least being questioned. But what exactly is the point for using Wikipedia instead of primary
literature? It is an encyclopaedia after all, thus useful utmost as a source of curiosities, but not facts to be used and applied. Furthermore, it is
an encyclopaedia that can be edited by virtually anybody and obviously there are people who are meticulous, such that lack proper knowledge, those
that don't even use references, and even those who purposely lie. I admit that the chemistry part of Wikipedia is quite of good quality, but still it
is only an poorly verified encyclopaedia and should be treated as such. Just imagine that one day people get so used in trusting it, using it as their
favourite source of information and never even bothering verifying sources, that they might even believe what is written about touchy subjects like
history, religion and politics. That would be a disaster waiting to happen. Wasn't the terrible experience with television enough? We still have not
resolved that problem and now we are already at the verge of a new similar one.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Nicodem | | The reason is in that Wikipedia is often used by exactly those who should avoid its use, the beginners. [...] It is an encyclopaedia after all, thus
useful utmost as a source of curiosities, but not facts to be used and applied. |
I grew up with the last
print edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. It was certainly not merely a source of curiosities. What encyclopedias are very good at, Wikipedia
included, is providing enough information about a topic to provide orientation about a topic, which then acts as a foundation upon with build further
understanding. Broad knowledge about a field, even if shallow, gives a set of relationships within which new bits of information become more
immediately meaningful. Particularly, this kind of breadth accelerates learning. It's quite difficult to get this breadth otherwise without either
social/cultural immersion or long, grinding study (or both).
On the other hand, a pompous ass is going to be one regardless of Wikipedia.
|
|
|
Rattata2
Harmless
Posts: 35
Registered: 22-6-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I have to disagree with you Nicodem. You're right in that wikipedia should not be a direct source of information but as watson.fawkes puts it, it
serves as a great starting point for orientation of a topic. It's not exactly convenient to go to the library every time I want to look up a compound
and its structure, or various information about it like proposed syntheses. Granted nobody should try to do a synthesis exactly as it is written on
wiki, but at least it's a good place to start and say "Oh yeah, that's a good idea, I'll look into that more."
Which is exactly why I wanted to reference this..it did seem farfetched and the other half of wikipedia are people who constantly try to remove any
mis-information they do find. Yeah there are idiots who post there, but they are eventually mostly weeded out and I think that's what you're missing.
Not to mention even on a forum like this it's easy to find mis-information. I've come across many threads here where people refused to give certain
info because of biases, gave mis-information, incorrectly-written/understood information or even information that was blatantly wrong (myself
included, though completely by my own error.) If you're gonna dis wikipedia you might as well dis the rest of the internet too. The key is taking
everything you read with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
Sandmeyer
National Hazard
Posts: 784
Registered: 9-1-2005
Location: Internet
Member Is Offline
Mood: abbastanza bene
|
|
Wikipedia can not, IMO, be compared to television. Content on the television is mostly controlled by mega-corporations and its is there to misinform,
entertain and make population into passive, obedient consumers. On wikipedia (at least now) everyone can participate.
| Quote: | | Furthermore, it is an encyclopaedia that can be edited by virtually anybody and obviously there are people who are meticulous, such that lack proper
knowledge, those that don't even use references, and even those who purposely lie. |
You can be a PhD, write an article that Elsevier profits from and still be meticulous, lack proper knowledge and lie. In fact such articles are
verified by only a couple of employees, discussion does not even exist. Content on wikipedia can be verified by everyone and there is even a
discussion section. That is great. But it is true that one should go to the university to learn the machinery of research, it can not be done very
effectively by simply surfing the web.
[Edited on 6-2-2010 by Sandmeyer]
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
Peer review Not a "couple of employees". Your post sounds like sour grapes from someone whose crap manuscripts are rejected. Often?
[Edited on 6-2-2010 by entropy51]
|
|
|
Sandmeyer
National Hazard
Posts: 784
Registered: 9-1-2005
Location: Internet
Member Is Offline
Mood: abbastanza bene
|
|
You meen: https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=12...
?
[Edited on 5-2-2010 by Sandmeyer]
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
You seem to believe the peer reviewed literature is not worth much compared to Wikipedia.
But that leaves the conundrum of why you have requested to be supplied with so much of it in the References section. UTFSE.
I wonder why you didn't just go to Wikipedia instead of begging for references. Aside: I have never requested a single reference.
[Edited on 6-2-2010 by entropy51]
|
|
|
Sandmeyer
National Hazard
Posts: 784
Registered: 9-1-2005
Location: Internet
Member Is Offline
Mood: abbastanza bene
|
|
| Quote: | | I agree. The peer reviewed literature is absolute rubbish. Good for nothing. All lies and fabrications. |
I do not think it is all lies and fabrications as you seem to do. I do think it can be much more efficient than what it is, but that would of course
be against the perceived interest of current power structures so that will not happen unless we make it happen. And it is already happening.
| Quote: | | But that leaves the conundrum of why you have requested to be supplied with so much of it in the References section. UTFSE. |
First, funny that you are using The-Hive terminology, second, I do not remember requesting so many references and it is compleatly irrelevant. Any
way, I contribute by writing papers in scientific journals, so why should I not be able to read them as well? The question you should be asking is why
researches (and the general public, since they pay tax that makes the university going) do not have unlimited assess to the papers we create at the
university. Why should it be handed over to private corporations denying us access to information that belongs to everyone and is created with
tax-payers money?
| Quote: | | I wonder why you didn't just go to Wikipedia instead of begging for references. Aside: I have never requested a single reference. |
I use wikipedia as well, I think it is a great resource.
[Edited on 6-2-2010 by Sandmeyer]
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Sandmeyer |
| Quote: | | But that leaves the conundrum of why you have requested to be supplied with so much of it in the References section. UTFSE. |
First, funny that you are using The-Hive terminology |
LOL. Do they use English over there too? I wouldn't
know myself.
[Edited on 6-2-2010 by entropy51]
[Edited on 6-2-2010 by entropy51]
|
|
|
turd
National Hazard
Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Oh I see, you still have problems with logical reasoning and still couldn't escape your black & white world. Sandmeyer never claimed that all
articles published are rubbish. But many are, because the peer-review system stopped working a long time ago. It doesn't scale to a level where
everyone and his dog publishes every petty result. If you believe something just because it was published in a peer reviewed journal, you are just as
naïve as someone who believes everything that is published in Wikipedia.
And that's not even something new. I can show you articles published in a well respected journal in the early 1980s that are obviously bullshit from
beginning to end. And the same authors are still publishing the same quality material. 
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
