User talk:Shultzc
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Please leave any suggestions for me below.
Shultzc 05:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello Conrad
You have left a message on Organic chemistry objecting to the definition/classifiation of chemistry. The note above your comment was written in March and since then the definition has been improved in my view. Do you have any quibbles with the present definition and what is your objection if any.
I never heard from anybody about your definition saying that organic chemistry has to be connected with methane ?
The last time I looked at the definition it included your other criteria
By the way, your expert contribution on these pages would be very welcome. I dislike the paragraphs on properties for instance, which does not give justice to its title. I have a draft rewrite, but I am not yet satisfied with it, it needs a rethink.
LouisBB 10:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello again
Thank you for the reply.
You might correct me on this but I would doubt if any other encyclopedia would use your definitions, although I don't wish to argue about their correctness.
The first one needs explanation of what a covalent bond is and then what bond is in general, and somebody who wants to know what organic chemistry is is unlikely to understand either of these.
The second is a bit too technical as well. You can convert many compounds to others, and why don't we start with CO and H2 and methanol synthesis, or Fischer Tropsch. Methanol does not make sense to me.
Properties I meant Characteristics and I shall expand on this a bit later, as I have to go now
LouisBB 19:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi again
I’ve been a bit busy with doing some translation work for the Wiki Trustee Elections, so this Wiki aspect was a bit neglected, though I wanted to do some mod’ in it. I am very pleased to be able to discuss the subject with you, rather than to fight an editing war, which some people have a tendency to do. The other tendency is that the whole subject is abandoned.
What I have quibbles with is the Characteristics and the Organic reactions sections, which, I think, need a lot of editing.
I would think that the Characteristics should be sub-divided to a Chemical and a Physical section. In the former section the reader should be referred to electron configurations, orbitals, and the way they influence chem. behaviour, very well detailed by the reference Daley & Daley.
The connection between the physical properties and electron configurations are not mentioned either, and the reasons why we pick on density and solubility from amongst the scores of others. Again, the Daleys gives the reason.
Secondly here we don’t say anything about state of aggregation, which is just silly, because physical properties (even including solubility) largely depend on it. The solubility link appears quite exhaustive, I have not looked at it thoroughly enough to say if it is exhaustive enough.
A link should also be quoted to physical properties in general as well as to detailed explanation of electron configurations and orbitals. The mention of p electrons does not convey much to the reader at this stage.
In Organic reactions the definition is a bit simplistic, as it states the obvious, and the formula, again, at this stage is not meaningful. We should refer to chemical eqilibria and reaction kinetics as well, which, to my recollection is not the case. Apart from giving a brief list of reaction types we should give a link to the complete list of reactions shown elsewhere. I looked at this section in the German Wikipedia and I was very impressed how well ordered and wikified the appropriate German section was.
Why am I telling you all this ? It is because I trust your superior knowledge, as things should be fresher in your mind as a PhD student, than in mine, an old graduate. Apart from that you would have easier access to citable textbooks than me.
Cheers, LouisBB 21:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for CIA DCI fine-tuning
Nice improvement in the linking. There's a lot of both CIA and general intelligence material, and indeed an Intelligence Task Force at the Military History Project, that can use another look. My userpage gives an overview of how a lot of pieces fit together.
In a way, it's both friendly and amusing to see some of the comments on your talk page -- I was a chemistry major about 40 years ago, and, in the real world, am suddenly in need of remembering organic, and the small amount of chem engineering to which I was exposed. I keep reasonably current in pharmacology, but some friends want me to write a proposal for a rather creative application for biodiesel from restaurant waste. Funny how it comes back!
Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
