 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
SMILES is incorrect
editThe SMILES string is for an isomer which violates Bredt's rule -- the double bond is in the wrong location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.127.34 (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Reaction scheme wrong?
editExactly how should polynorbornene be drawn? the monomer is a C7 molecule so the repeating unit should have 7 carbon atoms between the brackets (and not 6) IUPAC devoted a article to this topic Pure & Appl. Chem., Vol. 66, No. 12, pp. 2469-2482, 1994. online article suggestions are welcome V8rik 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Energy-absorbing polymer?
editThere has been a novelty pair of black molded balls maybe 2 cm in diameter, which look almost the same; both are dull-surfaced and opaque. One is (I assume) polyurethane, and bounces repeatedly; in each impact, little energy is absorbed. In popular lingo, it's a "super-ball". The other one, however, is said to be composed of polynorbornene, as I recall, and it simply stops dead when dropped onto a massive, hard surface. Even when dropped from two meters, it hardly bounces at all. These might still be available from magic shops.
Providing that this can be verified, it would make an interesting and perhaps worthwhile addition to the text.
Regards, Nikevich (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This applications are already well-known, we added some information. Regards, G. Karall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.159.98 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Ethylidene norbornene
editWith respect to the syntheses of the compound from cyclopentadiene and butadiene the naming sounds odd: I expect a name like ethenylnorbornene, indicating the double bound is located exclusively in the substituent. Ethylidene to me means the substituent is double bonded tot the norbornyl skeleton. On the other hand, I cannot exclude a migration of the double bond which would mean the name is correct after all. T.vanschaik (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Why the reversion?
editThis was very poorly and misleadingly written as it was. Please explain why my edit was reverted.
1) "To effect" means "To bring about", while "To affect" means to "To influence." It's clear that affect here is used in error. 2) The Catellani reaction is obviously related to "transition metal migration", itself very vague, perhaps someone else could improve the phrasing. Regardless, it's misleading to separate these into two non-contiguous sentences.