From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Subject: Re: methl hydrate?
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:11:55 GMT

Gabriel Tojo <qogatojo@uscmail.usc.es> wrote:

>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>> Gabriel Tojo <qogatojo@uscmail.usc.es> wrote:

[ on trivial names versus IUPAC ]

>> Some, like Benzol ( Benzene ), Toluol ( Toluene ), and Xylol
>> ( Xylene ), were, and are, industry-specific, and any
>> transition to new names will take generations....
>
>Those names are not common among professional chemists. In more
>than 20 years talking with colleages, hearing lectures, attending
>international conferences and reading journals of organic
>chemistry I almost never met names like benzol or methyl hydrate.

I've worked in industrial chemistry for over 20 years, and
"1 degree Toluol" and "5 degree Xylol" are still used by older
colleages and factory staff to refer to technical grades. The
various technical grades of a solvent ( eg "3 degree" "5 degree"
"10 degree" - refering to the boiling range ) have disappeared
here as the markets have standardised on one technical grade
for each product.

When I was testing the products in the 1980s, the drums were
still labelled "Toluol" and "Xylol" as the main name, with
Toluene and Xylene as secondary names. Even the specifications
still used both names in the title. I think we move in
different circles.

>At the contrary, when we find a post like methyl hydrate,
>we inmediately asociate it with a week-end chemist.

Interestingly, in industry, I would treat any chemist
unfamiliar with common trivial names like toluol and
xylol with a great deal of caution.

Chemists who persist in using names like 2-propanol,
2-methyl propanol-1, 2-propanone, 2-butanone,
1,2-ethanediol, 1,2-propanediol, 2,2,4-trimethyl
pentane, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, tetrachloroethylene,
etc. etc. when discussing common solvents usually
are fresh-faced graduates who haven't seen more than
a winchester of the solvent.

They usually are clueless about bulk handling hazards
of chemicals - such as electrostatics with pure
hydrocarbons.

>The fact is that the IUPAC rules are quite consistently
>used throughout the professional chemists, and the use
>of those other names serve quite efficiently to identify
>the non professionals.

Oh dear - those of us who use trivial names daily can take
solace in the knowledge that we can communicate with others
also using the chemical without remembering nomemclature
rules that are often ignored anyway. It's not as though
the IUPAC rules are absolute - even the IUPAC have had to
bend to common usage for some common chemicals.

I'm not trying to say that trivial names should be
pre-eminent, just that learning them helps interactions
with other stsff.

        Bruce Hamilton

From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Subject: Re: methl hydrate?
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:28:58 GMT

"ijl" <ijl@mediaone.net> wrote:

>Would you argue that "petroleum ether" is a good name?  That's my
>number one pet peeve as far as the worst name anyone ever thought
>of.  :)

I suspect that if you researched it a little, you could find that
the usage of "ether" to describe volatile fractions predates the
hijacking of the term to describe the C-O-C group. I'm very
comfortable using "petroleum ether" or "petroleum spirits" to
describe volatile hydrocarbon fractions ( use of "ether" and
"spirit" along with the lower volatility "oils" was quite
consistent ).

I know many petroleum solvent suppliers have switched to
"spirit" rather than "ether", and tradenames, such as
Shell X4, Mobil 1516, are also often used instead of ether.
I don't have a problem with the use of ether to describe
volatile solvent.


Perhaps we can get the chemists to rename the ether group to
"Al" - as the C-O-C imparts volatility, flammability, memorable
aroma, instability, may be toxic ( to people and the environment ),
and becomes explosive with age and/or ahock.,

I wouldn't expect fresh graduates to be familiar with trivial
names, but they should be able to recognise them as trivial
names, and know where to go to find the modern equivalent.

         Bruce Hamilton

From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Subject: Re: methl hydrate?
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:30:18 GMT

Gabriel Tojo <qogatojo@uscmail.usc.es> wrote:
>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
..
>> I suspect that if you researched it a little, you could find that
>> the usage of "ether" to describe volatile fractions predates the
>> hijacking of the term to describe the C-O-C group.
>
>An the term spectrum was hijacked from horror films.

My point was that "ether", "spirit", "oil" already had clear
and unambiguous meanings for chemists, and it was the
subsequent capture and attempt to redefine the meaning by
nomenclature fanatics that has causes complaints about
confusion. Learning industry-specific names isn't onerous,
and can help communicates with users.

The public use "ether" in at least two ways that don't match
the chemists' usage - to describe the invisible medium that
hosts the electromagnetic spectrum and for chemicals that
put animals to sleep. Not all people working with chemicals
study chemistry.

[ On petroleum ether ]
>I do have a problem, because this stuff lacks a ether function.

It fulfils the tradional criteria for "ether".

>In order to describe a volatile solvent the best thing is to
>use this couple of words: volatile solvent. They are precise
>and unambigous.

They are no more precise than the user wishes to make them.

What is volatile?. In the perfume industry, volatile solvent
could be a solvent that boils at less than 80C, in the
petroleum industry it could be a solvent that boils less
than 250C. To a petroleum chemist, decane and water could
be volatile, but to a perfume or gas chemist, they could
be considered non-volatile.

I won't even start on the variation in use of "solvent", but
save that until next time :-)

>Instead of petroleum ether or spirits we may use hexanes or
>volatile hidrocarbon fraction.

Hexanes or hexane fraction is but one type of petroleum ether,
and for some purposes would be too restrictive. If a
formulation specifies "petroleum ether", I would assume that
I could use any of the diverse 30-120C boiling non-aromatic,
non-olefinic petroleum fractions available, according to
whatever other properties I desired ( such as vapour
pressure or boiling range ).

Aromatic = arene, and olefinic = alkene + alkyne, for
those who dislike trivial names. I recognise that
"aromatic" can have two trivial meanings to chemists,
but context clarifies.

Some commercially avialable hexanes fractions commercially
available no longer have significant (%) levels of n-hexane,
they are iso-alkanes because of the toxicity of n-hexane.

>In Science we must try to employ clear and unambiguous terms.

My point was that traditional usage was clear and unambiguous
for chemists, and it's not that hard to include the historical
usage into your vocabulary, which will help communicate with
many ordinary users.

I'm sure that educational institutions will solely support
IUPAC names, probably the tutors wouldn't know the trivial
names anyway, but once the students reach industry, they
will find that trivial names often rule. I reiterate, if
somebody talks to me about chemicals using IUPAC jargon,
I'm very wary.

    Bruce Hamilton

From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Subject: Winchester - was Re: methl hydrate?
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:25:40 GMT

I previously wrote...
[ on IUPAC names versus trivial names ]

>Interestingly, in industry, I would treat any chemist
>unfamiliar with common trivial names like toluol and
>xylol with a great deal of caution.
>
>Chemists who persist in using names like 2-propanol,
>2-methyl propanol-1, 2-propanone, 2-butanone,
>1,2-ethanediol, 1,2-propanediol, 2,2,4-trimethyl
>pentane, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, tetrachloroethylene,
>etc. etc. when discussing common solvents usually
>are fresh-faced graduates who haven't seen more than
>a winchester of the solvent.

Oops. I received email requesting an explanation of
winchester. My sincere apologies, I wasn't trying to
trap, but didn't realise that it wasn't global. The
following is from memory, but I'm sure a search of
Weights and Measures WWW sites will provide an authorative
answer.

The US and British weights and measures systems were
once based on standards involving the city of
Winchester in the UK, and chemists appropriated the
term "winchester" or "winchester quart" to describe
a large glass container. The container was often
more than the common "imperial quart" of 2 pints, and
a common usage amongst chemists was for the half gallon
measure ( imperial system would define that as 2 quarts ).

To avoid confusion, the "quart" was dropped from the
name, and any large glass containers between 2-4 litres
capacity ( regardless of shape ) are commonly called
"winchesters".

It referred mainly to the glass half-imperial gallon
( 2.25 litres - but, in NZ, that same container was called
a "flagon" when filled with beer :-) ), and has been
reassigned to the common 2.5 litre glass bottle and other
sizes up to the US gallon ( 3.8 litre ). The usage, in
NZ at least, has also tended to be used solely for liquid
measures.

I know that there is a drive to downscale chemical
experiments in educational institutions and industry
analytical labs, but winchesters are still the most
common form of solvent containers that I purchase.

        Bruce Hamilton

From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Subject: Re: Winchester - was Re: methl hydrate?
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 08:59:58 GMT

Gabriel Tojo <qogatojo@uscmail.usc.es> wrote:
>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>> Oops. I received email requesting an explanation
>> of winchester. My sincere apologies, I wasn't trying to
>> trap, but didn't realise that it wasn't global.
>
>The World is much bigger than the Anglo-Saxon comunity.

Well, I cheerfully acknowledge that your English is much better
than my second language, but it's irrelevant. I've already
apologised ( reinserted above from my original post ) for using
regional jargon.

Winchester is our standard term for such solvent containers, it
has the merit of covering a range of sizes of similar utility.

Asking somebody to obtain a winchester of solvent means that we
expect any size from 1/2 Imperial gallon ( 2.25 litres ) to 4
litres. Winchester still exists in common usage because it serves
a useful purpose for us.

>In the little Galician culture in which I live, on the countryside
>people use the non metric "ferrados" for surface of pieces of land.
>...
>Originally a ferrado was meant the quantity of land able to produce a
>certain amount of corn, and naturally it depends on the area you are
>living.

What a wonderful unit, functional, easy to understand and
agreed by those that need to know. Long may it continue.

>What is the point of using these parroquial units like Winchester
>in Science.

They convey useful information simply, otherwise their
use would disappear. As a result of this discussion, more
people know of Winchester and Ferrado.

The SI system is not perfect, some countries replaced
simple units that could be easily envisaged ( eg pounds per
square inch, inches of mercury etc. ) with Pascal. It's
hard to visualise pressure in terms of clones of a long
dead Frenchman.

      Bruce Hamilton