vasten

I don't seem to see what you are seeing, or am misunderstanding your question. could you represent what you are saying visually? any system maybe the you are counting the connections to other bodies as a carbon. you do not count the connection points between circles and bars as carbon, only where three or more lines excluding the surface of bodies. I work on chemical projects between Western and Chinese.(my main field is actually energy, mostly renewable). I often get a new project and have to learn quickly, biochem are the hardest I find. smaller detailed stuff is easy. kind of a perpetual student

If you don't like the way I drew Heme A, please by all means show me how you think it should be. as per the question.. I will refer you to read the first page of this discussion, which points out the many examples, situations and potential uses for dscript. I said the goal was to draw quickly, efficiently, concisely in small spaces, while sacrificing information to compensate for the limitation of 2d written systems. Your answer was "why would you want to do that?" I tried to avoid getting into a completely unrelated discussion on "why someone would want to do that" by simply pointing out "If you can't think of a reason, then I guess it's not for you". the answer to your question is... Because I work with large amounts of information, so large sometimes it is too much, and the only solution is sacrifice. And there are many people like me, so if you don't see any situation where you would be willing to sacrifice the information you maintain is too precious to give up, then please ignore this, it is not something that you would find useful. I tried to explain this many times, also stressing over and over that this cannot replace any current systems, and is meant for study/creative/brainstorming/doodling purposes.

Sorry, I blew a little steam, you just seemed an easy target for the particular stress I have dealt with ;living in China for the last 7 years. But you must admit I that you have re-asked questions that have been addressed and readdressed in a critical and , and came off in a somewhat "stifling" and "condescending" manner. I overreacted, and apologize, but in no way retract my general position.

Obviously a self-use, study, doodling, brainstorming.. like i have been saying for HOW LONG NOW!!!! What else could I mean. Am I crackpot Evangelist trying to convert the world? You insist you do not mean to insult me, you arn't listening and appear to assume I am an idiot.

I appologize if I am being to sensitive. and I was not implying that you have insulted me or implied as such, just that it seems you are only interested in criticizing. I love criticism, but you sir, have been hashing the same couple points over and over as if I am "unaware" that I have had sacrifice sterochemical accuracy or that I do not understand why such a thing is important. I have tried over and over to make a simple point when writing space becomes a restriction... or when information overload occurs... sacrifices must be made. I am obviously assuming that any user of this would understand this, and be able to compensate for this sacrifice. You made your point, I said "I know, but what if we sacrifice it" Afterall, Dscript is still more sterochemically accurate than a formula (eg. CH4). So is it possible for you to move on to another issue?

While doodling and playing with random thoughts and idea. Not while trying to solve a particular problem at hand. I assume I am not the only one who does these things.

I have already explained how most of that can be added(I just usually don't need to) and how sterochemical accuracy display is NOT a primary goal. Fear of learning curve, yes, I am aware that will be an issue, i think that one is rather obvious. Yes, Thank you for always comparing each aspect with whichever system is better. While never comparing each aspect with other systems weakness's And all only considering application currently used by current systems. You are an expert on the current systems, and their application. Thank you for your help, I do need to hear these things. But I am now at the point where I am finding you annoying and unless you interested in discussing NEW ideas and NEW applications, I am quite finished speaking with you. I am just a crackpot drawing squiggly lines on paper, please ignore me!!!!!!!

Yes, this is my main concern as well Does the learning curve outweigh the benefits gained? and Is there a need? ------------------------------------------------------------ Does the learning curve outweigh the benefits gained? As per leaning curve, I have gotten much more positive repsonses from those currently studying chemistry in Uni. They don't care about leaning curve, because by practicing it while simultaneously attempting to learn a large mound of chemical structure, the two learning processes seem very complimentary. I would say for beginners the benefits tend to outweigh the time investment. However for those, like myself and you guys I assume, the time investment is not worth it. I found it amusing to create, but have had to force myself to use it. (I try to work stuff out on paper now, I live in China and have to travel alot for business so I have found a new love the pen and paper). But I do not feel it has provided any concrete "return on investment" that justifies the time put in. ------------------------------------------------------------- Is there a need? Well, it all comes down to.... Do you want to use paper, or a computer. Obviously computers are necessary. I will never say "paper" beats "computer". But, me personally, I love paper, I love doodling, I love playing with ideas and randomly jotting away until chaos falls into order. And Dscript is great for this. I use dscript for the love it, with the only goal to be increased complexity on a single sheet of paper, while remaining intelligible, clear, and as visually appealing as possible.

Yes, and when needed I add bonds, hydrogens etc... when needing full detail, i just apply the standard charge notation rules to Dscript. they work fine. Again, what key needing to emphasize, is think of it this way. Suppose you were drawing out the chaining of amino acids, or you were "following" metabolic pathways, You are at the point where you are generally familiar with the molecules, you want to start evaluating a very long series of interactions, or one enormous interaction, You could: a)Use an alphabetical letter(or string of letters) to represent molecules b)Use chemical formulas to represent molecules c)you could use standard system to draw the molecules Dscript offers: d)draw each molecule with concise but simplified symbols, maintain composition integrity, but sacrifice spacial accuracy for writing space and writing speed this new option aims to offer a mixture of advantages from the other three options. very useful for some situations less so for other situations

Dscript 8 pen strokes (no extra bonds) 1 loop Only right angles, easy to draw total pen strokes = 8 Standard 9 pen strokes (no extra bond lines) 1 letter N Total pen strokes = 10 Angles all over the place, will NOT look nice when drawn by hand, unless you waste time trying to make angels and line sizes exact. (will not count H2 as I don't use them either) Dscript takes into account the mechanical limitations of the human hand.

Yes, and we have tools for studying them but when looking at more and more, larger and larger molecules, I am trying to increase writting speed and writting space efficiency, while also alowing for multiple forms of representation to increase overall flexibility. Now, I am just looking to play with something, seeing if there are other ways of doing something, and what advantages disadvantage said new method may present. but I cannot resist the following... "Why fix what 'aint broke, ya' know?" the true mind of a scientist! I'm sorry for trying to modify, improve, change, experiment.... can you recommend a good doctrine for me follow? Not so, Dscript Chem notation is an extension of Dscript(the general neography, at http://dscript.ca) Dscript letters C = (every intersection is a carbon) N = So.. accounting for the neography(neography is a new writting system) it is just as obvious that... is the same as (the right side is the name "phenylethylamine", not a molecule) The difference is I sacrafice the correct angles and extra bond lines (irrelevant in this case anyways) in order to gain speed and reduce size. Bond lines can be added easily, they do of course usually increase size and reduce speed. Think of it more like a symbol or glyph that attempts to represent chemical notation. At the very least, it can be fun if you enjoy penmanship and will force the user to "play" with it, all the while memorizing chemical structures. It is NOT meant to replace any current system. This is a hobby that I am looking to refine.

If you can't think of a reason to do it, then it's not for you I guess. Dscript is 2D, it does not attempt to represent 3D information, and to be honest, in my opinion, with computers and rendering, nowadays no one does this stuff on paper anymore anyways. 2D setreochemical presentation is a dying art. I normally don't draw the double bonds because usually my goal is a quick visual representation when I am dealing with many large molecules. but when needed they are simple, an extra line not touching either side running parallel to the bond line. eg Phosphatidylinositol

Ok. Now draw that Freehand in less than 30 sec roughly the size of your thumb this is what Dscript is for

what other ways? how would you draw the Heme A molecule, or a long chain of amino acids. I don't mean an abbreviation (like just writing the abbreviations for the amino acid) i mean actual concise visual representation of the molecule.

Good question. First of all the "script" in Dscript refers to "written script" or "writing font". Not programming or scripts of that type. For me it is a matter of degree of detail, and writing efficiency. The standard method is the most detailed and accurate method. The space filling method is the most visually intuitive. A formula (eg. CH4) provide no visual intuition but is detailed in a sense. The Dscript notation only scores "medium" on the accuracy and visual intuition, for each individual purpose the space filling or standard method are best. But many of us have gone beyond needing such detail (eg. standard notation already assumes carbon, and does not show most hydrogen atoms) Dscript notation retains most important information while reducing the writing strokes and page space requirement. Perhaps most important is that the angles and design of the standard system sometimes contort the hand and are difficult to draw cleanly. A large complex molecule can be drawn quicker and smaller but still represent the molecular structure. Amino acids are a great example, long chains of amino acids can be drawn with great detail in small spaces. There are still many weaknesses I am working on, most notably I have only added Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Sulfur, Phosphate and Iron so far. It is still a work in progress, but all the fundamentals for organic molecules is already there. Basically think of them as concise "symbols" that are small and easy to write, but still reflect molecular structure. With a little practice they are easily recognizable, writable, and a fun way to "study" molecular structure.

Hi all, I have been working on adapting Dscript for representing molecules. It works great because Dscript is already designed for vertical and horizontal. I just started it, so the online info for chemical notation is far from complete. I use the Dscript alphabet (reference at www.dscript.ca). So far it seems really efficient. It works great for amino acids and peptides. Dscript Chem Notation - www.dscript.ca/lesson I would love some advice on how I could make it more efficient and aesthetically pleasing. here are some example. Morphiceptin Proline, Phenylalanine, Proline, Tyrosine, and far right is the product, Morphiceptin. Heme A The biomolecular structure is on the right, and the name written in Dscript on the right. Aspartame (N-(L-α-Aspartyl)-L-phenylalanine,1-methyl ester).