Talk:1,2-Diaminocyclohexane

Check it out

trans-1,2-Diaminocyclohexane is probably a better article on the same topic.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I did before I wrote the article. They are not the same GRALISTAIR (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I have added a "not to be confused with" at the top of the article - hope this helps GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

OK thanks for the note, trans-1,2-Diaminocyclohexane is the racemate. So there is a problem, or seems to be. One solution would be to revise the article to be about the cis isomer. That is a pretty obscure one though. Working with CAS registry numbers can be confusing. What do you think? --Smokefoot (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

No. 1,2-cyclohexane diamine (this article) is produced commercially and has multiple uses. It is a mixture of trans and cis isomers. trans-1,2-diaminocyclohexane is the trans isomer only and as it has been separated out is much more expensive and thus much less widely used. Its uses are very specific indeed. If you are going to merge anything, I strongly suggest that the earlier article on the trans-1,2-Diaminocyclohexane is merged with this one - not the other way around. I do not see a use for the cis isomer and thus it has no need of a separate article. As far as I am aware once the trans isomer is separated out it is blended into this this product. My honest opinion is that both articles are needed.GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, so we are in agreement about what racemate means. These articles are about compounds. The processes and the apps follow from the compounds. Hopefully we are clear on that.

So I just want to clarify what you are recommending. Three articles:

• trans (trans-1,2-Diaminocyclohexane)
• mixture of cis and trans (1,2-Cyclohexanediamine)
• cis (cis-1,2-Diaminocyclohexane)

Is that your proposal? Just want to be sure that I understand what is being discussed in terms of compounds.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes but I do not propose writing the cis article. I hope someone else can do that. I use the mixture at work all the time though so that is why I wrote it. In my research I found the trans article and that was new information to me. cis would definitely be new to me. GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

To complicate matters as well as having cis and trans conformations you also have two chiral carbons on the molecule. GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The stereogenic center aspect is convered by the trans-isomer. This situation is pretty standard organic chemistry. The trans isomer is chiral, sort of a package deal. And the "chiral carbons" as you call them are only chiral in the trans form.

Since you dont seem to agree with my drift, I will work on 1,2-Cyclohexanediamine to reconcile the two overlapping articles. In my opinion, it would be best to merge. Every other article of this sort is merged, e.g. tartaric acid and 2,3-Butanediol. Unfortunate.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. It seems messy the more I dig into it. 1,6-diaminohexane also produces this Hexamethylenediamine but the inlinew cite on that page in my opinion wrongly directs to the trans isomer when it should redirect/link to this article. I am going to add it as a "see also". Hope you don't mind. If you do well obviously you can revert or remove - no problem. GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Its not messy, but one needs to understand organic stereochemistry before taking on this kind of article development or acquiesce to someone (like me) who does understand the basics. Please look at diethyl tartrate. See that this one article covers all three stereoisomers, Ditto for tartaric acid. 1,6-diaminohexane has zero connection to the enlightenment that I am wishing on you.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I am embarrassed - my 1st degree is in Chemistry with Organic as my favourite. I am supposed to understand the basics but confess no way am I an expert on stereochemistry. Delighted to acquiesce to you. I wrote the article in good faith. A pillar of Wikipedia is supposed to be "Assume good faith". I use the stuff DCH-99 all the time at work and believed the article necessary. I still believe the two articles are different. Happy to leave all the rest up to you. Keep the faith GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You have no reason to be embarassed. I am old dude who has been teaching this stuff for 40+ at a uni. In any case, I am in no rush. I do hope that you get a chance to look at our articles on diamine]]s, hardeners, epoxy this and that, urethanes, nylons, fatty amines. These are topics where you may have first hand experience. Ivory tower folks not so much. I figured that in Dalton you must know fibers. We are desperate for someone in dyes, polyesters, rayon, etc. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)