As ever, the Bard puts it better.
Bob
]]>All I was trying to say is that is the diagram whatever you call it.
That is what I was asking. Thanks to the Oracle
]]>My explanation started by constructing the diagram, then re-naming it correctly. To answer this:
Is there absolutely no way to draw 2-ethyl-3-methyl-hexane?
Yes there is. see that earlier post. That's it. There is no other way.
Does it matter what we call it?
The standard nomenclature is a way for everybody to use the same terms so there is no confusion. You can use a different term but expect that people won't know what you're talking about. If I persist in calling that thing in front of me a flunge, I must expect some strange looks.
Bob
]]>but how can we imply this scenario in organic chemistry? do you mean that we can do something new to already defined rules for nomenclature?but it won't be acceptable as the rules which i have studied till now hold good for almost all situation and are revised well by chemists across the world.
pls. explain clearly if I have not got what you exactly meant to say.
Deliberately enigmatic, to encourage thinking.
Try thinking about this:
In front of me is a chair. I call it a chair; other people call it a chair. But, if I decide to call it a flunge, is it still a chair?
Bob
]]>Is there absolutely no way to draw 2-ethyl-3-methyl-hexane?
A clever computer scientist decided to make the ultimate computer. He built-in petabytes of memory, utilised a quantum computer module and multicore processors, used fibre optics for speed and an operating system that allowed the machine to learn when in use. He gave it cameras to 'see', voice recognition and speech.
Finally it was ready for use and he decided to have a small ceremony to mark the occasion. He didn't smash a bottle, for that would have been a waste, but he did treat himself to a large glass of champagne. "I name this machine 'The Ultimate Slave' ", he announced as he threw the switch into the ON position.
There was a crackle of electricity and in a flash, a high voltage spark fused the switch in the ON position.
"Good morning", said the machine; "but I think you've got the name wrong!"
Bob
]]>Is there absolutely no way to draw 2-ethyl-3-methyl-hexane?
the way bob drew the structure is right.
The actual structure will contain bonds at an angle which he mentioned as approx 109° but then we generally draw the structure of carbon compounds like the one made above.
But .... the name is determined by the longest carbon chain and there are 7 in a line*
C1
|
C2
|
C-C3-C4-C5-C6-C7
|
CSo it should be called 3,4 dimethyl heptane.
Is there absolutely no way to draw 2-ethyl-3-methyl-hexane?
]]>Just, out of pure respect, should we be saying the Oracle?
]]>Obviously, it goes without saying that I'm always grateful to have your confirmation if I do a sum correctly. But one thing you must learn ... it is never ... ever ... necessary to confirm the oracle's statements. She who must be obeyed is always right. Even when she is wrong. Not that she is ... ever ... wrong, of course.
Bob
]]>