Talk:Absolute configuration
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Polish. Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
Untitled
[edit]The pictures are COMPLETELY INCORRECT: all four bonds are drawn as if they were directed toward the viewer, also the R and S molecules do not seem to be mirror images of each other. -- Leocat 12:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
the image originates from the Polish Wiki and seemed like a nice one. Should be replaced. V8rik 20:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- They are not incorrect images as far as being demonstrations of stereo chemistry, "absolute" chemistry I have no idea, mostly because I do not take seriously any science topic if it is not first published in a reputable academic journal. What the image fails to explain is that functionality also plays a part, for instance, the reason for a human's right and left hands being a good example of non-super-imposable mirror image, is due to the function of bending your fingers. If your fingers didn't bend or didn't have finger nails on one side only, your hands would be super-imposable. If you question is serious Leocat, the image is correct, it is the entire topic that may be bunkDirtclustit (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
New article for "Relative configuration"
[edit]I propose that there should be a separate article for "Relative configuration". Somerandomuser (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- What would it contain? Is it a discrete enough topic with enough to say to merit its own article? DMacks (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
R/S Nomenclature
[edit]The absolute configuration section specifies that "If the center is oriented so that the lowest-priority of the four is pointed away from a viewer, the viewer will then see two possibilities: If the priority of the remaining three substituents decreases in clockwise direction, it is labeled R (for Rectus, Latin for right)"
This is inaccurate, as the linked Wikitionary page defines rectus as straight, not right. I was told during my education that the rectus-right definition was used by Robert Sidney Cahn as an excuse to use his own initials, although I cannot find a source to back that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.224.78 (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, it means "right" in the sense of "not wrong" ;) RedOak350 (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)