tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post592684879252200880..comments2024-03-25T09:11:17.877-07:00Comments on The Curious Wavefunction: Modeling magic methylsWavefunctionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-3280042593780474162012-04-28T14:05:01.613-07:002012-04-28T14:05:01.613-07:00Thanks for your comment. The H--H interaction is i...Thanks for your comment. The H--H interaction is indeed what skews the rings. I forget the exact sum of VdW radii but it's around 2.2 A if there is no deviation from planarity.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-54592154652225924852012-04-26T12:58:24.555-07:002012-04-26T12:58:24.555-07:00I mistakenly assumed that the dihedral angle in th...I mistakenly assumed that the dihedral angle in the unbound state for R = H should be 180 degrees. I assume that there is some Van der Waals interaction between hydrogens on adjacent rings that skews the rings?Chris Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-63902786358155378852012-04-26T12:55:25.402-07:002012-04-26T12:55:25.402-07:00Wavefunction, I don't think you need to change...Wavefunction, I don't think you need to change your style-- you're clearly doing a terrific job of writing to a relatively broad audience. A bit of color ("anthropomorphization") in your descriptions makes for an enjoyable read and helps the reader to relate quickly to complex concepts. One can read the original literature if more precise (but dry) descriptions are desired.Chris Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-59079018498503823462012-04-25T05:15:27.842-07:002012-04-25T05:15:27.842-07:00Thanks for your comment; your point is well taken ...Thanks for your comment; your point is well taken and perhaps points to a more general challenge in blogging for a mixed audience, that of balancing scientific language with language that laymen might find engaging. I do agree that anthropomorphization (they should make this a word) often oversimplifies the issue, but it's sometimes hard not to do this if you are pitching chemical concepts to a popular audience. That being said, I agree that the best popular science succeeds in simplifying concepts without anthropomorphizing them, and I should certainly strive to do this in the future. <br /><br />Thanks for reading.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-45481234756016652372012-04-24T16:34:18.983-07:002012-04-24T16:34:18.983-07:00In your fine piece on methyl effects I have to poi...In your fine piece on methyl effects I have to point out a rather bothersome component. Although physical organic chemistry seems to have lost a good measure of its respectability over the past couple of decades, it has a fine and noble history. But I submit that no small feature of the decline is the anthromorphazation of its revolutionary, proud, and very satisfying concepts. Now anthromorphazation is probably not a real word. But I find "…kicking out 'unhappy' water molecules … water molecule that is desperate to join its free brethren ... methyl group is usually only too happy to oblige and kick the water out…" even more objectionable. <br /><br />Maybe that kind of descriptive narrative is ok and even necessary for a blog, but might you make some effort to minimize the inclination in the future?<br /><br />A loyal and otherwise very pleased reader.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com