Talk:Triptycene

regarding ref.2 (the arkivoc paper): I read the paper and as far as I can tell there's no mention of molecular motors, not even in the references. The paper is mainly on synthesis of triptycene derivatives, and there's no relevance to motors. I do suggest to remove it, or have it reference to a different section in the triptycene wiki.I'm with gerrit (talk) 10:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reworded article, citation no longer linked to molecular motors. V8rik (talk) 18:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page easily has the worst chemdraw images I've ever seen. The infobox image shows the three rings as being coplanar (!) and the one in the reaction schematic shows two of them almost exactly overlapping. They're worthless, as far as I'm concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.18.33 (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, I think the images are quite useful. There is no way to depict this compound in a two-dimensional line drawing without having awkward overlaps (such as the image in the reaction scheme) or distorted perspective (as in the infobox image). But these images are useful ways to illustrate the connectivity. To get an appropriate depiction of 3-dimensional geometry, a 3D model is needed - and, of course, the space-filling model in the infobox provides just that. So what we have are multiple different depictions to appropriately convey different types of needed information. Nothing is lacking, as far as I am concerned. ChemNerd (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]