Template:Archive box collapsible

Баклавата е появена през XІX век. Human anatomy (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben:

Hope I am not bothering you!

Wondered if you could please make a structure drawing of Trifluralin. Would like it in the same format (colors and such) as done for the other molecules in the organofluorine strip.TCO (Reviews needed) 23:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(as long as I am pushing my luck) Any chance of getting this one also? Fludrocortisone Also in the same format as the organofluorine strip molecules. (and if you can make the fluorine visible/prominent in the view, that would help.) Trifluralin is higher priority though.  :) TCO (Reviews needed) 00:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TCO,

I'd be delighted to draw these two for you. I just need to put my PC back together to do it. I'll let you know when it's done. --Ben (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. 'preciate! It is for a good article!TCO (Reviews needed) 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here you go: File:Fludrocortisone-from-xtal-1972-matt-3D-sf.png, File:Trifluralin-3D-matt-sf.png. Hope this is what you need. If not, let me know. --Ben (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ben. I know you are busy. Is for a good cause, important article! I will get a new ministrip made (just the biologically significant molecules). need to play with which ones I use and the order and all (I like making the order match the text order [and I am rewriting test for other reasons], so the article and text work together). These look exact same style, so should be no issues, but if anything comes up will bother you (I doubt it!)TCO (Reviews needed) 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I want Lipitor also. You already have a drawing of that. I can't tell the matte/gloss stuff. Will just go with what is there and maybe come back to you if some look different from others. Compiling new strip now (request in at graphics lab). Thanks as always. Incredible what talent we have here at the Wiki and how many places I find your name on structures!!!

TCO (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want a new image of atorvastatin (Lipitor)? --Ben (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am good, thanks!TCO (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your username is in Category:Greek loanwords. I want to clean-up this category a bit from invalid entries so I want to remove your name from it, but I can't since it's archived in an old talk page of yours. Will you please do it for me? Macedonian (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. --Ben (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Macedonian (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben,
I want to ask you about the image at right (File:MPV-reduction.png) which you uploaded some years ago. It seems to me that the alcohol in the product should be R₁–CH(OH)–R₂ rather than R₃–CH(OH)–R₄ (a starting material). Also the mechanistic arrows appear to me to produce R₃–C(O)–R₄ as the ketone product of both the MPV and OPP processes, yet that ketone is consumed in the OPP process and the ketone R₁–C(O)–R₂ produced instead. Perhaps you might be able to provide a corrected image, assuming you agree that corrections are needed? Thanks.
EdChem (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdChem, yes, you're right. I'll fix it an re-upload. Thanks very much for spotting this and letting me know. --Ben (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your help. --Ben (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your new version is excellent. :) EdChem (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am working on (for purposes listed below) on astatine. I want a molecule for it. I honestly tried to make one. Downloaded a molecule structurer. Really tried to do it myself. I failed :( Seems I'm not so good at designing.

If this does not bother you, would you mind helping me by drawing a molecule? (I'm inclined to ball and stick C₆H₅—AtO₂, but it does not matter.) If you are so kind to help, I'll gladly take any (just not HAt, please). This would be really appreciated!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I understand if you just can't, for any reason.

I'm sure I can draw you something, but I'd prefer to draw a molecule which has actually been structurally characterised. I assume no astatine compounds have known structures, but maybe you could find out for me. I think a computed structure would be OK, but I don't want to compute one myself because it'd be original research and I might get it wrong. --Ben (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to know you're so easy to interact with :)

If you want bong lengths stuff, then it's probably very hard to find. But if it is what you want, I'll search as I can. And I believe it may be a failure anyway. Pretty possibly none calculated it. But I originally thought of something more "down-to-earth." I mean, to go without bond lengths. We can point out that the image is just not to scale, which is obvious, to avoid this. Structure of C₆H₅—AtO₂... I haven't seen it anywhere discussed, maybe because actual readers find it obvious anyway. Especially given the route to the chemical (C₆H₆ (+At₂)→ C₆H₅—At (+Cl₂) → C₆H₅—AtCl₂ (+NaOCl) → C₆H₅—AtO₂). The benzene ring, with one hydrogen replaced by —AtO₂ group (double bonds between At and O)

--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, I looked hard for the bond lengths. Of course, I found nothing. But I checked the literature. It says that C₆H₅AtO₂ can be synthesized in the absolutely same manner as C₆H₅IO₂. This, given analogous empirical formulas, brings me to the logical conclusion they have the same structure. And here lies the structure for C₆H₅IO₂. If you need some other info, please tell me.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for looking, I've been too busy to do it myself. Can you provide a link to the literature describing PhAtO₂, please? It is very dangerous to "logically" conclude structures from empirical formulas – see Talk:Dibutyltin oxide#Structure for an example of such logic leading to inaccurate information in a Wikipedia article. Such "logic" is basically banned on Wikipedia. The section Synthesis of published material that advances a position at Wikipedia's "no original research" policy describes the rules. --Ben (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the literature and databases, and PhIO₂ is polymeric (N. W. Alcock, J. F. Sawyer (1980) Dalton Trans., 115). A polymer would be highly improbable for astatine (random and rapid radioactive decay would mean one of two neighbouring At atoms in a polymer would very likely decay after a very short time). I don't know what effect a lone pair on At would have on the structure of an isolated PhAtO₂ molecule. I need to find either (i) a calculated structure for PhAtO₂ or (ii) a calculated or experimental structure for an isolated (e.g. gas phase) PhIO₂ molecule and a reference stating the At analogue is likely to be isostructural. Else we risk speculation. --Ben (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Got your point, it seems reasonable. Gimme a few days, OK? I'll try to find something. (I don't believe to succeed, but who knows?) Also, will check the less complicated molecules. If I fail, can I at least get the space-filling HAt? I can give you a ref telling it's molecular. There is some molecule in the main article, but I want one of your beautiful 3D molecules (I really like them; no wheedling).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. So, for the meantime, do you want a shinier version of File:Hydrogen-astatide-3D.png? J. Styszyński, J. Kobus, Chem. Phys. Lett (2003) 369, 441–448 gives the H–At bond length as about 1.72 Å, depending on computational method employed. I'm making an image of it now. --Ben (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found nothing. So yes, I want a shinier version of File:Hydrogen-astatide-3D.png, please.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The following ref might be useful: "Temperature dependence of the ion–ion distance of crystalline francium halides and alkali metal astatides". Radiokhimiya (in Russian). 11 (6): 698–706. 1969. I can't find the journal at any local library and I can't read Russian, but could request it by interlibrary loan and hope that at least some data-tables would be understandable if you want it. DMacks (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would generally love to :) Just in case: if nothing understandable for you is present, you may note that I can read Russian (so if you photographed it, it would be easy to me to read ;))--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)n.[reply]

Requested it and another more recent article that may have additional information...will probably take a few days to arrive. DMacks (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: File:Hydrogen-astatide-calculated-3D-sf.png. --Ben (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Mind if I ask you for anything ever again? :) --R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben, I have started a page on the organometallic compound molybdocene dichloride, Cp₂MoCl₂, which is structurally similar to titanocene dichloride. That is, two η⁵ cyclopentadienyl ligands and two chloro ligands around the Mo^IV centre in a distorted tetrahedral arrangement. Would you be willing to prepare an image suitable for illustrating its geometry? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Skeletal formula or ball-and-stick model or both? --Ben (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Both would be excellent, to go in the infobox much like in the Cp₂TiCl₂ article. EdChem (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - enjoy. --Ben (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a little side by side comparison of CaF2 and BeF2 for Fluorine#Low oxidation state metal fluorides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Make_BeF2_glass_diagram.2C_possible_crop.2Fpad_of_other_image

Any help appreciated. Mostly, just need the BeF2 image. I can handle the putting it into a table and all. Even get aspect ratio tweaking if that is not your bag. (will be centered, which is why I prefer wide and short aspect). I realize drawings won't be same scale and one is ball and stick versus the other being space filling. THat said, I still think it will work to show the basic point (super rigid CaF2 versus deviant loosey-goosey BeF2) and they are so clearly different scale that reader will not be confused. Also, I'll use caption to explain that glass is a 2-d slice)TCO (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can re-draw these things in the same style – do you want them both ball-and-stick or both space-filling?

Another important point is that BeF₂ can adopt more than one structure. Which structure do you want drawn?

According to Greenwood & Earnshaw, beryllium fluoride is "a glassy material that is different to crystallize; it consists of a random network of 4-coordinate F-bridged Be atoms similar to the structure of vitreous silica, SiO₂." They mention two crystalline quartz structures (a low temperature α modification and a higher temperature β one), plus cristobalite and tridymite analogues.

J. Am. Chem. Soc. (2008) 130, 11082–11087 investigates polymorphism in BeF₂ computationally. They mention a coesite analogue, as well as the structures noted by Greenwood & Earnshaw.

Ben (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got the same info for BeF2 polymorphs. I think showing the glass versus fluorite is most helpful in terms of storyline. They are obviously not the same sort of drawings (or to scale), but presumably different enough so that is obvious to the reader anyway, and I can clarify with caption. If we did a BeF2 xtal structure, than alpha quartz would make most sense. And I assume ball and stick is needed to see what is going on. But I really prefer the glass as it is more common and makes more sense as extreme of "abnormalness" of BeF2. I actually think I have what I need from the Graphics Lab, now, except I will get the aspect ratio worked on (is a reason why I prefer short and wide, has to do with layout issues and text wrap).TCO (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cool. That glass structure might be nonsense, though. None of the images cites a reference. --Ben (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify that it is a sketch. I think even for silicate glass, it would be a cartoon, not "the structure".TCO (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for publishing chemical structures. You published 3 of them as balls and sticks, but I need them as a spherical representation. The files are the following:

• Cyclohexylamine-side-3D-balls.png
• Epichlorohydrin-3D-balls.png
• Styrene-3D-balls.png

Could you please change these structures to the sphere-representation?

Thanks in advance and best regards from Germany JF Jotef (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "spherical represenation", do you mean space-filling models? If so, yes I can do this for you. --Ben (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done:

• File:Epichlorohydrin-calculated-MP2-3D-sf.png
• File:Cyclohexylamine-3D-sf.png
• File:Styrene-from-xtal-2001-3D-sf.png

--Ben (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks a lot!!!! Jotef (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ben,

You may have noticed that I have not created structures for Wikipedia in a while; over time I notice more and more how little I know about Chemistry. However, I miss doing it.

I am still an undergraduate, but I am going to be participating in research with my professor soon. I feel that my understanding of chemistry just keeps increasing! I would like to resume contributing to Wikipedia some time soon. I now have tons of access to crystallographic data, and my professor would probably be more than willing to help me. I understand that interpreting crystallographic data is a graduate level course, but I hope you don't think that I am pompous for asking this: granted a basic understanding of multivariate calculus and ordinary differential equations, would one be able to learn how to recreate structures after reading a decent amount? For example, I found a great slide show that I think may supply all of the information that I need to tackle this task, tell me what you think: http://www.cryst.chem.uu.nl/huub/notesweb.pdf

Thank you,

SubDural12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hi SubDural,

Yes, I wondered where you had gone - glad to see you back.

I'm still an undergraduate too, so don't worry about that. I really don't think you need to worry about multivariate calculus and ordinary differential equations in order to use published crystallographic data to make images for Wikipedia. It's much simpler than that.

You can either type the Cartesian coordinates into Accelrys DSV (I'll tell you how if you want to do it that way) or open a CIF file in a crystal structure viewer like Mercury (which is free). You can get many CIFs free at http://journals.iucr.org/, or you may have access to a database of CIFs like the Cambridge Structural Database or the Inorganic Crystal Structure Database (ICSD).

That PDF you link to is excellent, but it contains fair more information than you need. Use it if you want to learn how to solve crystal structures yourself. Are you doing any crystallography yourself at university? --Ben (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben,

I like the idea of the CIF, because the work is basically done for me. However, there are some structures that only allow me to view the coordinates, so I think that it would be important for me to understand how to do it that way as well. I was wondering where you obtain the coordinates - generally in the image section? For example, I would never have known that there was partial bonding between the nitrogen and the alcohol group in your rendition of monoethanolamide if it were not for the crystallographic data. I found on table VI of doi:10.1063/1.1612919 that there was a list of "principle-axis-system coordinates." Is this where I should be looking? How do I utilize this information? Also, I see that you have calculated some structures using Spartan Student. What is this program, and do you recommend getting it?

Also, I am not doing any crystallography yet. University here in the states is not as complicated as it is over there. However, I will be synthesizing novel metal complexes that may have practical uses. This will be fun :). I appreciate the help.

SubDural12 (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SubDural. I just noticed I never replied to this message. You don't need to know about multivariate calculus and ordinary differential equations to use coordinates from an article to make a molecular model. You can just type them into DSV (there's a way of creating a unit cell and then adding atoms, I can't remember how off the top of my head but the help files should guide you).

The paper you link to, J. Chem. Phys. (2003) 119, 8397–8403, uses microwave spectroscopy to study the gas-phase structure of ethanolamine. It's a completely different technique to crystallography. I sometime use microwave papers, but only if the bond lengths and angles are explicitly stated.

Spartan Student is an easy-to-use computational chemistry application. You can get it to calculate the minimum energy structure of a molecule for you. It's fun and teaches you a few things about chemistry and molecular modelling. I used to use it when I couldn't find a molecular structure in the literature, or to draw diagrams of molecular orbitals. I wouldn't recommend this, though. It's verging on original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. You can think you've calculated the correct structure of a molecule, but you haven't really got it right and you'll have no way of knowing. Computational chemistry should really be done by experts and carefully checked against experimental structures. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia should just cite textbooks and other scientific literature. We shouldn't really be doing our own experiments (even computer experiments) and reporting the results here.

So I recommend Spartan for learning chemistry but not for Wikipedia, not unless you're refining a literature structure or something similarly uncontroversial.

Good luck with your synthetic project. I'll be interested to see what you make.

Ben (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben. The space-filling models in CLD chromophore and Octadecyltrichlorosilane are the two last local ones that are in the inappropriate JPG type and in use. It would be great if you could redraw them in your high quality way. --Leyo 09:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leyo, thanks for the request. I'll do them ASAP. Cheers. --Ben (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All done. --Ben (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks a lot. I nominated the two replaced JPG images for deletion. --Leyo 10:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben, I've been doing tons of molecules thanks to your guide. So, I wanted to thank you for that.

Now, back to business, could you check the 3D model I made for Levonorgestrel? The far right C-C---C-O (--- triple bond) apparently goes down in the 2D model yet it doesn't in the 3D model, I've tried all the SMILES and InChI keys and once I copy paste the 2D model from ChemSketch to the 3D model in Discovery and then apply clean geometry, the C-C---C-O "tail" (electrical, not chemical, engineer here, bear with me) never goes down. Oddly enough, this "tail" DOES go down here Gestodene (also made by me). So, what gives? Thanks for your time. MindZiper (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MindZiper, thanks for your message. Beautiful images, well done.

I think it's the presence of the C=C double bond next to your atoms of interest in gestodene that keeps the CCH group down (chemists would say CCH is in the axial position and OH the equatorial). The C=C makes the five-membered ring more rigid, reducing the number of different possible conformations. This makes it easier for DS Visualizer to get it right.

I was surprised at the conformation DSV calculated for levonorgestrel, so I checked the crystal structure. The true conformation is different, it's like gestodene. I can send you a PDB file of the structure if you want to update your image.

The reason DSV didn't calculate the correct conformation is probably that it got stuck in a local energy minimum and wasn't brave enough to jiggle the atoms around sufficiently to find the global minimum. But I'm not a computational chemistry specialist, so I don't really understand much about how the software operates.

It's verging on original research (which is banned) to calculate your own 3D molecular models and put them in articles. It's much better to use the scientific literature (journal articles, reviews, textbooks) to confirm the structure. Almost all of my images are based on crystallographic (or occasionally spectroscopic) reports. I include references to the original publication on the image description page. If you're able to do this too, your images will be more trustworthy and are likely to remain in articles for longer.

I know it's difficult to search the literature systematically and obtain models or structural data without the tools available to professional and academic chemists. Some crystallography journals are open-access or partially open-access. Some articles in IUCr journals are open-access, as is all of Acta Crystallographica Section E: Structure Reports Online. For example, the article Acta Cryst. (2012) E68, o1279 gives you free access to a CIF file, which you can open in DSV and make an image of the molecule. You can use the search bars on those websites to see if the molecule you want has been reported and is free to download.

I'll be happy to help if you get stuck. --Ben (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There, I think I fixed it, and now it looks exactly like the 3D model from ChemSpider. I verify the models using the 3D models from PubChem or ChemSpider (I suppose they have their stuff done right), and I always got that little meddling "tail" wrong UNTIL gestodene, which is why I asked you about it before I kept making the same mistake. So apparently all the molecules that I've drawn that have this "tail" in them are slightly wrong (very wrong actually, mifepristone depends on its propynyl that goes down. I need to fix that as well). Thanks for the journals, they'll come in handy next time I try to model anything. Thanks again for your time. MindZiper (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wouldn't trust PubChem or ChemSpider for 3D models unless they specifically state they're experimentally determined by X-ray diffraction or similar. You've done well to consider whether your models are realistic, unlike many of the others who upload 3D molecule diagrams here. If you need any more advice, feel free to ask again. Good luck! --Ben (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben, I wanted to verify the data for the bond length and angle in ammonia. What I found in the CRC handbook and in other published sources was 101.2 pm and 106.7°, rather than 101.7 and 107.8°. Do you have a reference for your data? Chrom69 (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chrom, I got it from Greenwood & Earnshaw, p.423. These dimensions are often a bit tricky - the value you obtain depends on the analytical technique you use. There are all sorts of issues with excited states and what not. Perhaps CRC is the way to go. --Ben (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I would like to ask you to create a ball-and-stick drawing of the correct trigonal capped triprismatic (D_3h) structure of ReH₉^2-, in the same style as the other drawings in the VSEPR article. As you noted recently on the VSEPR talk page, this is not the same structure as the monocapped square antiprism (C_4v) currently in the table in the VSEPR article. I did find an image of the D_3h structure in another (less attractive) style and placed it on the page for ReH₉^2-. However when I tried to place that image in the VSEPR article, another editor substituted the C_4v image; apparently s/he still thinks the two are equivalent despite your explanation. So perhaps it would help to have a good D_3h image which can be used in both articles. I don't have software to draw it so I am asking for your help.

As for the C_4v image, I note that it was drawn by you in 2008 and labeled as ReH₉^2-. Perhaps you did not realize in 2008 that it does not correspond to the experimental structure of this ion. That image could be relabelled as Monocapped square antiprismatic geometry, although I do not know if there are any real molecules with that structure. Dirac66 (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dirac66, thanks for updating me. I actually made images based on the crystal structure of potassium nonahydridorhenate in 2009, but had forgotten about them until you reminded me: Commons:Category:Potassium nonahydridorhenate. I can't remember what I thought when I made the 2008 image! I probably just got the software to guess some hydrogens in sensible places. This guy Whoop, what is his obsession with the two structures being equivalent? --Ben (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the 1999 redetermination of the crystal structure again. From what I could gather with my limited knowledge of German, the structure of ReH₉^2- is a monocapped square antiprism (i.e. C_4v). The authors note that the tricapped trigonal prismatic structure (D_3h) is closely related.

Here's the original German quote: "Als Koordinationspolyeder ergibt sich ein einfach überdachtes vierseitiges Antiprisma, das dem dreifach überdachten trigonalen Prisma eng verwandt ist." And my (rough) English translation: "The coordination polyhedron is a singly-capped four-sided antiprism, to which the tricapped trigonal prism is closely related." --Ben (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I made Jmol models of the crystal structure and the anion a while ago, too: http://www.benjamin-mills.com/chemistry/structures/K2ReH9/. Enjoy! --Ben (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies and for the German translation. (It has been many years since I passed a German-to-English translation exam, and I can no longer translate that whole sentence by myself.) Also I didn't know the structure had been re-determined, and now I think we should decide what the facts are before modifying the article. Perhaps you could start a discussion on the ReH₉^2- page by citing the 1999 reference (which is not now cited in the article) and describing its conclusions there. Since this paper contradicts the two textbooks cited which say D_3h, do you think it is definitive? Should the Wiki article say that it has been recently corrected or that it is now in doubt?

Also can you figure out from the article what is meant by closely related (eng verwandt) in this context? Does it mean (1) that the displacement of H atoms required to transform one structure to the other is small, or (2) that the interconversion is facile (with a low energy barrier), or (3) something else?

Finally I looked at your Jmol models and I am confused. The most relevant model would be the ball-and-stick model of the anion, but it seems to have only six hydrogens instead of nine. What have I not understood? Dirac66 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand this model now. We are looking down the C₃ axis so the other 3 H are behind the 3 H connected by the shorter Re-H bonds. Dirac66 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, they've made me double check. This 1999 redetermination is apparently no different to the previous crystal structures (X-ray and neutron from 1964). 'Eng' means 'narrow' or 'tight' - I took this to mean 'closely'. 'Verwandt' means related. The article doesn't elaborate further. I think I misinterpreted the section about the anion geometry. It says early in the article that it's tricapped trigonal prismatic (D_3h). At the end, they mention monocapped square antiprismatic [ReH₉]²⁻ in a different compound, Rb₃ReH₁₀ (weird stoichiometry - apparently Rb₃H[ReH₉]). So there's no controversy, the structure of [ReH₉]²⁻ is D_3h, as you and the textbooks state. The Jmol model should now be rotatable - click and drag to manipulate it. You can see the threefold symmetry for yourself, as you say. --Ben (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I'm glad to know that the scientific literature is in agreement on the D_3h structure. Perhaps you could add the 1999 German reference to the article on [ReH₉]²⁻. Also the click and drag does indeed help the visualisation.

As for the VSEPR article, we still need an image of the tricapped trigonal prismatic structure in the same format as the others in the table, drawn with all nine H visible (at least in part). This can replace the incorrect C_4v image which is there now. Dirac66 (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the references (1999 and original 1964). I'll make a new image for VSEPR theory as soon as I can. Thanks for the discussion! --Ben (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Dirac66 (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the drawings you have added today look very good. I see that you even drew the AX₈ square antiprism from two different perspectives. I have now copied the AX₉ drawing into the potassium nonahydridorhenate article to replace the one I copied previously. (And I'm glad to see you are in Bristol - I spent two years there, long ago before you were born.) Dirac66 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ben. Could I ask you to re-draw this into a ball-and-stick picture, one of those cool ones you draw? I think it's (I mean the image) more interesting than simply HgF₄ we've got in (fluorine) now. Also, don't want to use the existing image (seems too boring mb, dunno, no excitement about it). Do you think you could help?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no problem, give me a few days as I have exams at the moment. --Ben (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some while ago an editor queried the diagrams on the page about lysine, to which you replied. I happened to look at the page and was staring at the diagrams there now, because it looked wrong. So I hopped over to talk and found the existing conversation about it. I think you posted a 3-D diagram of a lysine cation which is now on the lysine page purporting to be lysine. Surely this is wrong, because it isn't what it is claiming to be? Sandpiper (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandpiper,

When I wrote at Talk:Lysine#Wrong diagram on page that File:L-lysine-monocation-from-hydrochloride-dihydrate-xtal-3D-balls.png isn't a mistake, I meant it was not an oversight. I deliberately uploaded the cation because the crystal structure of the neutral lysine molecule has not been reported. This is the closest we have to the true structure. I just searched again, still no neutral lysine crystal structure. Finally, lysine is protonated at physiological pH so the monocation is a realistic model. --Ben (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats interesting, but arguably makes matters worse. On the page there is a line diagram corresponding to C6H14N2O2 sitting next to a 3d diagram with 15 Hydrogens. They cannot both be the same thing, and as there is no explanation to the contrary why the 3D is different, its rather misleading and confusing for anyone who might be looking (me, for example, having stared at it and come to the correct conclusion that it is wrong). I dont know how this is usually handled, but you cant really put up representations of two different things under captions which imply they are the same. Something needs to be changed. But also, if I walk into a chemist and get a bottle labelled lysine containing solid material, what form would the lysine be in? Are you saying lysine does not actually exist? You give quite a detailed name for the molecule you drew, but my very rusty chemistry suggests that perhaps it could be more helpfully described as Lysine hydride? Sandpiper (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the chemistry merits discussion. The problem is, a satisfactory representation of the neutral molecule is not available. You wouldn't buy pure lysine from a pharmacy, it would be a tablet containing lysine hydrochloride (i.e. what the image depicts, plus a chloride counterion) plus inert white powdery substances to bulk out the tablet. See, for example, http://www.hollandandbarrett.com/pages/product_detail.asp?pid=117&prodid=29. A shorter name for the cation I drew might be lysinium. Hydride refers to the anion H⁻ (hydrogen with two electrons rather than one), whereas the extra hydrogen here is H⁺ (hydrogen without any electrons). I will update the article to clarify the situation. --Ben (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, havnt had time to follow this up, and I guess nor have you. I see wiki says about hydrides, "Covalent hydrides According to the antiquated definition of hydride covalent hydrides cover all other compounds containing hydrogen. The more contemporary definition limits hydrides to hydrogen atoms that formally react as hydrides and hydrogen atoms bound to metal centers. " Which seems to be a rather perverse self-referential definition of a hydride as something which is a hydride, but that is a different problem. My rusty chemistry suggests we are not talking about hydrogen ions as such at all, more a charge redistribution within the molecule. In the sense you argue lysine never exists as such, nor do these hydrogen ions. That would be lysinium as in zirconium, magnesium, caesium? Sandpiper (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Fluorine, Manganese(IV) fluoride

Request: Create an illustration for the MnF4 structure. See para in "Fluorine" for context. I would like it for two reasons: (1) the discussion is complex and a graphic will help people (especially non-technical ones) feel more comfortable and (2) it is sort of different than the chains and lattices shown.

In terms of the appearance, I would like something showing "octahedra" (since they are referred to in the text) and showing a ring of 4 of them. Perhaps use a dashed "circle" to emphasize the ring-ness. I am really more concerned with something a little cartoonish that illustrates the text than making sure we have a complete unit cell or the like.

Here is only non-free illo I could find [1]. It's quite nice in that it shows the octahedra, but also the little knobs of atoms at the vertices (think about the non chemical reader). But in addition, I would like the dashed circle added for the reader to see ring-ness emphasized.

I don't have crystal structure date, but perhaps you can research it (I am really not a purist on that sort of thing, but feel free if you are). Here is a reference: [2].

TCO (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. I prefer aspect ratio that is "wide and short" if it does not otherwise hurt the image (fits better in text wrap).

Graphist opinion(s):  Done - see Commons:Category:Manganese(IV) fluoride. Let me know which one you want to use and I will add the dashed circle. --Ben (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you.TCO (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Fluorine, please draw a diagram that shows F2 research handling station. Not really sure what I want, but show the valves and cold trap and just the linear manifold and all.

See the para within Fluorine. Also this photo. And explanation. The enclosure with remote valve shuttof is quite interesting as is the placing it in a hood. Of course it is just one uni's method, but it seems state of the art (and I'll add a citation to their web page).

Maybe letters indicating materials (with legend). or just labels in drawing? Donno. Could probably strip out some of the scaffolding and other stray stuff for simplicity.

Also there is this classic diagram in Shriver Inorganic Chem page 427.

TCO (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Straight to the point, there TCO! I don't have any experience with fluorine rigs, so I'm no better for this task than someone at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. Might be best to ask there. --Ben (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about the MnF4 then? TCO (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See new chem project proposal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/Participants#Proposal_for_project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meduban (talk • contribs) 22:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major congrats on getting the degree. You have always been super kind and helpful around here and I hope you have lots of great things coming your way with that new credential.TCO (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The real life accomplishment award
	Good job getting it over the goal line! TCO (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks very much, TCO. --Ben (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben! I recently figured how you make molecules, all thanks to your guide. However, I've got a problem I hope you can help me with. Your molecules are so smooth, and what I can make reflects shine like polished (they are in majority over Wiki, so don't want to introduce another minorish style). I have tried to change Preferences, but even after agreeing with the changes, the light problem doesn't change. What is the way out to make them smooth?

P.S. Many congrats about your recent success!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reverse order: (i) thanks very much! (ii) Newer versions of DSV have different surfaces to choose from (glass, plastic, wood etc). Play around with those to get as close a match as you can. It's not essential to make identical images. For me, a consistent colour scheme is the most important feature. --Ben (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can't match your lighting. No preferences change actually changes the looks of the models! Regardless of what settings I choose, the result is always the standard lights -- as you can see here. Not even a slightest change. There must be a problem somewhere... But I don't know where and thus how to fix it. (I brightened the image in Photoshop, thankfully I have a copy, but it still looks too dark. Brightening any further makes the green look ugly... Really hope there's a way out!)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I followed your guide about using Visualizer for molecules, and everything works, but I can't figure out how to use the colour scheme you have. Is there a quick way to load the colour scheme, or do I have to change each individual atom by hand? Thanks. Elite6809 (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elite. As far as I know, it has to be done by hand. You may be able to drag the colour scheme image into your colour picker. --Ben (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Chemicals for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, nice work! What software do you use to make these gorgeous ball and stick models (like the one in the link below)? I need to make a letter sized diagram, and these ball and stick models easily show relative bond lengths and 3D geometry. I also happen to be in love with the awesome lighting and gradient colour fills. I've looked around everywhere, but no one mentions what software is used for these gorgeous models. :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glycerol-3D-balls.png

--Amomchilov (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you do a lot of chemistry modeling and imaging here. For a class, I created the article Brookhart's Acid. I have an x-ray crystal structure, which I took from an article and claimed fair use. Would it be possible for you to create a free image from the crystallography data? The article is Template:Cite doi/10.1021.2Fom990612w. Or else could you suggest who I should talk to for help with this? Thanks. JDS Chem 444 Sp2012 (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made two free images for you, see Commons:Category:Tetrakis(pentafluorophenyl)borates. Best wishes, --Ben (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, those look great. JDS Chem 444 Sp2012 (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't see this conversation. I made one too File:BArF acid crystal structure.png. Ben, I'm not sure how well the H+ is located. The article itself talks about how there's some uncertainty in that. I wonder if it might be better not to depict it? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]