Talk:Dicyanoacetylene
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Dicyanoacetylene is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
An entry from Dicyanoacetylene appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 16 July 2006. |
 |
[edit] Organic? Stub?
Someone just tagged this as an organic compound stub, but that's debatable on both counts. I put it in Category:Inorganic carbon compounds because it lacks carbon-hydrogen bonds, and on analogy with cyanogen and carbon suboxide. I don't think it's a stub either, because it's not "so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library". —Keenan Pepper 00:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, it would qualify as an Organic compound, as it probably cannot be made by inorganic means, like direct combination of carbon and nitrogen. Carbon Tetrachloride is organic although it contains no hydrogen. Joeylawn 16:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Carbon tetrachloride is in Category:Inorganic carbon compounds. —Keenan Pepper 17:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK ,deleted. Joeylawn 02:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it can be organic, because C-H bonds must be present. In any case the assertion that organic compounds are needed to make it is probably not difficult to disprove. Also Wohler in 1828 made an inorganic compound from an organic one and that ended attempts to define organic chemistry by that means--AssegaiAli (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- See organic compound and it's talk page. There is no strict definition of organic. Absence of C-H bonds does not necessarily render a compound inorganic.
[edit] What's wrong with {{Chembox new}}?
It seemed fine to me, but someone replaced it with a table with a bunch of formatting information and visible xs. —Keenan Pepper 16:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Delocalisation
Isn't the "alternating single and triple bonds" thing wrong? Surely they are delocalised bonds with some electron sharing? I remember doing an exercise on a molecule that was H-C=C-C=C-C=C-C=C-C=C-C=C-H and all the bonds were 1.5 bonds if you do it with schrodinger equation, molecular orbitals etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ucgajhe (talk • contribs) .
- I thought that at first too, but aparently it is not so for the polyyne case. Check out J. Chem. Phys. 114:2208, Electronic spectra of the chains HC2nH (n = 8 – 13) in the gas phase, which says "As a consequence of localized π orbitals, large bond length alternation is expected". Even an infinite linear chain of carbon atoms is expected to have alternating bond lengths: J. Phys. C 12:3227, Ab initio studies on polymers I: The linear infinite polyyne. So "alternating single and triple bonds" appears to be an accurate description. —Keenan Pepper 13:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
