Antwain
Hazard to Others
Posts: 252
Registered: 21-7-2007
Location: Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Supersaturated
|
|
Chemical nomenclature and the language of writeups
I was hoping to get some help with chemical nomenclature pertaining to a project I am currently writing up. Of course, hopefully this will stay around
and any other problems that people have in the future can go here too.
As anyone who has written a "proper" writeup will know, there is a tendency for the use of 'big' or 'specialized' words to be used, even though there
is simply no good reason for it (I am in writeup mode or I wouldn't have said "tendency"  ).
my specific concern is that I need to describe combining several diethyl ether portions that were used in an extraction. Now if I had used dichloro
then I would just say "the combined organic layers" or "the combined solvent layers" but I was wondering if "the combined ethereal layers" should be
acceptable, or if "ethereal" has bad alchemical connotations attached?
Obviously you guys are not assessing my work, but it would be good to get some opinions on this, since I need to describe that process several times.
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
I haven't heard "etherial" used much. It does seem more concise as you point out.
Heavy wording and lingo are common, traditional you might even say -- after all, it's a social force to speak the same dialect as others in your
subculture.
A good writer writes for his audience, concise and with little lingo.
Edit: this should probably be on the misc forum.
Tim
[Edited on 10-14-2007 by 12AX7]
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22combined+ethereal+layers%2...
http://pubs.acs.org/wls/journals/query/subscriberSearch.html
|
|
|
Antwain
Hazard to Others
Posts: 252
Registered: 21-7-2007
Location: Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Supersaturated
|
|
I was going to put it in miscellaneous, but the topics there were pretty darn miscellaneous.
Thanks. @S.C.Wack- Why didn't I think of that?
|
|
|
smuv
National Hazard
Posts: 842
Registered: 2-5-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Jingoistic
|
|
I think "the combined extracts" or "pooled extracts would sound a lot better, than "the combined ethereal layers".
|
|
|
Ramiel
Vicious like a ferret
Posts: 484
Registered: 19-8-2002
Location: Room at the Back, Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-demented
|
|
I commonly encounter, and myself write "combined ethereal layers" or similar. This is common in many journals and AFAIK widely regarded as acceptable
parlance within the discipline of chemistry.
[Edited on 15-10-2007 by Ramiel]
Caveat Orator
|
|
|
Ozone
International Hazard
Posts: 1269
Registered: 28-7-2005
Location: Good Olde USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Integrated
|
|
How about "the organic layers were combined..."?
This is a bit more general because, frequently, the extraction solvent is not ether (sic, diethyl ether).
hmm...DCMeal.
"Lingo" is actually discouraged in favor of a concise statement describing 1) why the work was important, 2) what was done, 3) what happened and 4)
what you believe it meant.
To this thread was added, with stirring, one measure of...
Cheers,
O3
-Anyone who never made a mistake never tried anything new.
--Albert Einstein
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
