hypervalent_iodine

! Moderator Note It would be much appreciated if everyone could get back on topic. And chilled_fluorine, just...stop.

! Moderator Note Moved to homework help. Breezy, if you want members to help you here, you need to put in a little effort. What have you come up with so far and where exactly are you stuck?

! Moderator Note Which is why it doesn't belong in the main Science forums. Moved to Speculations.

! Moderator Note I've had to split the last 18 posts of this thread into a new topic. Please try and stick to the topic of this thread. New topic may be found here. Somewhat more related to the topic, I saw this courtesy of mooey last night.

Still no. Learn your Latin roots! Edit: This may help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomegranate#Etymology

But actually, pomegranates have nothing to do with it. The name, permanganate, follows IUPAC naming conventions for inorganic ions (look up naming of oxyanions).

! Moderator Note Topic moved to Speculations. tsolkas, please be aware that there are additional rules for this forum.

! Moderator Note Stick to the topic, please.

illuusio has been suspended for 7 days for multiple instances of thread hijacking, ignoring the rules of the Speculations forum and one particularly profane PM.

! Moderator Note illuusio, This is going to end up exactly like your other thread unless you start coughing up some evidence and stop avoiding the issue. This is your one and only chance. After this, it's thread closure.

! Moderator Note I don't think so. Closed, pending full staff review.

EMField has been permanently banned due to persistent thread hijacking.

! Moderator Note Genecks, You already have a thread on this. Please stick to one thread per topic. You're welcome to copy your post here to your other thread.

newts has been suspended for 7 days due to his continued efforts to disregard staff warnings about hijacking other threads with speculative material.

! Moderator Note Let's not continue to derail this thread with someone else's pet theory. Newts, hijacking someone else's thread is against our rules. Staff have warned you time and time again not to do this. Enjoy your vacation.

! Moderator Note Ronald Hyde, The off topic back and forth and the personal remarks are to stop. Argue the science and not the people presenting it. Do not derail this further by responding directly to this mod note. Please use our report feature or PM a member of staff.

! Moderator Note Genecks, The article you attached to your OP is not available free to the public. As such, attaching it for download here violates copyright laws and I need to remove it. If you wish to discuss this further, please PM staff or use the report feature.

Excellent, that was what I came up with as well. The NMR spectra on the sigma site matches it beautifully. As for assigning your peaks. 1H NMR You should be able to fairly easily assign the peak at 6.31 ppm. There aren't many types of protons you would expect to occur in this region and of the ones you have (a methylene CH2, 2 CH groups near a carbonyl, 2 vinylic CH groups and 2 CH groups at the base of the bridge head) only one of them could possibly occur in such a low field region. If you're having trouble, it might be more obvious if you have a look at a correlation table. I mentioned in an earlier post that the peaks at 1.77 and 1.57 ppm were interesting in that they looked to be pointed at each other in a way typical of diastereotopic hydrogens or an AB system. Essentially, these types of systems occur when you have a CH2 group wherein each hydrogen sits in a different electrostatic environment to the other. This seems counterintuitive because free rotation around neighbouring C-X bonds should mean that each H attached to the carbon atom spends its time in the same average environment as one another. However, in atoms where the C-X bond rotation is inhibited due to nearby steric bulk (phenylsuccinic acid is a good example of this) or fixation within a ring, the hydrogens on the CH2 group will end up locked in a certain position. This in turn means that each proton is inequivalent in terms of its effective magnetic shielding and will therefore appear on an NMR spectrum as two distinct peaks rather than one. This is why, for instance, axial and equatorial protons on the same carbon atom have totally different chemical shifts. As well as having different shifts, these protons will also show a fairly large through-bond coupling to one another as well as coupling to neighbouring protons. Now, looking at your compound, you should see where this phenomena might apply. Discerning between the remaining two peaks is a bit difficult. But, keep in mind (firstly) that they correspond to 2 x CH groups and not CH2 groups and (secondly) that your bridge head hydrogens should couple to one of those peaks and that peak should (in theory) therefore have a coupling constant that matches with one of the coupling constants of the CH2 groups. Of course, the other way to do this is to do a literature search or use the predictor software on nmrdb.com to help you figure it out. Do you also need help with the carbon spectrum, or was it just the proton one giving you trouble?

Is the guessing game and hostility really necessary? If you want help, it seems pretty obvious that the best way to do that is to actually describe your problem in full so that people can help you better or provide alternative solutions to your end goal that you may have missed. What exactly is the issue here? Also, please have a read of this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57940-a-notice-to-people-asking-questions-related-to-the-synthesis-of-dangerous-or-illicit-substances/ Granted, the title may not apply to you, but the points in it are relevant and something you may want to read to make your experience here both more amicable and more fruitful. Also, staff or members living outside of the UK isn't the issue in terms of legality. IIRC, it's the fact that SFN's server is in the UK.

Quick question, is it definitely only 3 oxygens? Also, what were the bicyclic structures you proposed?

Hah. Good, because I was close to having to reassess my career on account of not being able to figure your last one out. I'll have a look at it later today and get back to you.

! Moderator Note seeger carbajal, We like to try and keep our mainstream science forums streamlined so as to avoid the confusion of our newer members and because organisation is cool. Since your post does not, to my view, represent general scientific consensus at this point in time, I've moved your thread to the Speculations forum. Please be aware that in addition to our regular forum rules, the Speculations forum has an additional set of rules that we ask you to observe while posting here. If you have any queries about this action, please feel free to use the report feature (little yellow triangle on the bottom of this and every other post) or to PM staff directly. do not respond to this mod note within the thread.

! Moderator Note MattyG, If you think something is against our rules, please use our report feature to alert staff. ! Moderator Note eyesOpened, As it happens, making slurs or derogatory remarks against a group or groups of people is against our rules and the use of such remarks as 'gay' very much falls into this when used in a negative way as you have used them. So it stops now, as does the off topic banter (MattyG, that goes for you too). I would also ask you both to please stop dragging your issues from other forums into this one. Please do not respond to either of these mod notes in the thread. If you wish to discuss things further, please PM staff or utilise the report feature, on the bottom left of each post.

! Moderator Note Please tone down the language and the snarky comments. You've ignored the other half of this analogy. Very recently, I was reading a piece presented by J.B.S. Haldane in the 1935 Sir Halley Stewart lecture. Although it's old and although some of the science is outdated, it's quite an interesting read, and I think the way he relates this type of analogy to human eugenic policy to be quite good and much better than what I could write, so I'll quote it here. This also, I think, goes to answer some of the questions by eyesOpened. This is very much not true. Incest was fairly common practice in Europe the general population as late as last century (and is still common in other parts of the world) and there have been a number of diseases whose frequency is contributed to a great deal by the fact that the parents of affected persons were heterozygous first cousins, etc. It is certainly not limited to the royal family. A quick search of my own yielded these: http://jmg.highwire..../3/212.abstract http://onlinelibrary...1171.x/abstract You might also want to read this: http://en.wikipedia..../Founder_effect

! Moderator Note studiot, 1. Swansont is not in this thread as a moderator. If you take issue with his posts, please report it as you would any other member and staff will address your concerns as we deem appropriate. 2. Again, please get back on topic. ! Moderator Note I apologise if you feel somehow attacked by moderator action in this thread as that was not the intention. However, if you wish to discuss this further, I would ask that you please stop derailing this thread and contact staff privately either by using the report feature or by PMing one of us directly.