tojc Re: IUPAC Insanity
kingerjd@PLU.edu
Sat, 28 Sep 1996 14:41:07 -0800 (PST)
okay i am ging to give this a try. imagine that you were in portland and
you wanted to get to vancover. pretend that there are three bridges, one
short (that happens to be in the middle) and two long (one on each side
of the middle. They all orginate in the same place and end at the same
place. these are the bridge heads. Each of these bridges is a bridge in
its own right, it gets you from one place to the other. And if you
wanted to you could just contunually circle around on the bridges, goin
in a circle. this is what you do when naming it, walk the biggest circle
first assigning numbers as you go. then cut to the middle, and end when
you run out of things to name. WHen naming, it is necessary to name the longest
bridges, with the most stops first. in the 'blue' example on 138 start
at the bridge head, go around the biggest circle assigning numbers, then
cut to the middle. this is a bicyclo because it has two little circles,
heptane beacuse there are seven carbons, and [2.2.1] beacuse the longest
bridges each have two stops and the shortest has one stop. just remember
there are bridges and there are circles in these types of molecules.
Among those I like or admire,
I can find no common denominator.
But, among those I love, I can:
They all make me laugh.
--unknown
On Sat, 28 Sep 1996, Hunter M wrote:
> Is there anyone out there in Organicland who could possibly give
> me a little insight as to the logic involved in the naming of Bicyclic
> compounds?? Specifically, the nomenclature in the brackets.. I'm not
> following the [2.2.1] example given on page 138. Doesn't the bridge cross
> at the bridgehead? (which would actually make it [1.1.1]... How can they
> call (the example in blue) a 2 carbon bridge when it 's not a bridge at
> all? Have those nutty IUPAC folks decided to redefine what a bridge means
> in english?? Thanks for the help!!
>
>