Talk:Silsesquioxane

[POSS vs silsesquioxane: proposal to re-name page and make new page]

The content of this article is focused on examples using polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS) a sub-class of silsesquioxane. The following observations highlight the discrepancy and hopefully give context to the overall relevance:

1. I did not notice any information on this page about silsesquioxane resin materials that lack a well-defined structure. The article does not differentiate between symmetric vs. non-symmetric silsesquioxane compounds and materials.
2. A T8 POSS chemical structure is shown in the introduction section
3. The term POSS is not defined but is used in a couple of the examples in the article. Other terms used to describe the same structure are used interchangeably but are not defined in the article (e.g. cubic silsesquioxanes, POS)
4. Many of the applications given are specific to POSS and would not apply to an ill-defined silsesquioxane material. The cage content (i.e. POSS vs. silsesquioxane resin) and symmetry enables many of the applications described.
5. The synthesis of silsesquioxane resins is not shown
6. the industrial production of silsesquioxane materials is not covered
7. The history of silsesquioxane and POSS is not covered

Proposed actions

1. Re-name "silsesquioxane" article to "polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane"
2. update article to include history section
3. update article to include updated references
4. update article to include seminal work and references for reviews and books that cover the topic well
5. Start new "silsesquioxane" article and link to POSS article

Next Steps

1. The tentative plan is to draft a new silsesquioxane article in my sandbox with the intention of publishing the changes together
2. Please provide feedback or any objections, and if you would like to participate in the proposed changes

Thank You,

MesoAlchemy (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

[Untitled]

Can anyone shed any light on the variation in spelling? The IUPAC Gold Book (http://goldbook.iupac.org/S05666.html) lists this as a silasesquioxane, but google (both general and Google Scholar searches) prefers the spelling without the a (100-fold difference in hits). Brendio (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As both a former member of an IUPAC committee on nomenclature and an early silsesquioxane researcher, I can answer this question. IUPAC is a bureaucratic organization that claims the right to develop and implement systematic nomenclature rules for all chemicals. To a first approximation, it has good intentions for good reasons. But the work done by the committee and its approach seems to be similar to what I have come to expect from international organizations run by politicians and technocrats. In a vain attempt to systematize the nomenclature of all things chemical under a common set of rules, IUPAC has renamed many well-established chemicals and families of chemicals. "Sila" (derived from the word "silane") is the term IUPAC likes to use for names associated with silicon-containing organic compounds. Even though the name "silsequioxane" commonly was used by researchers for decades, the name given by the international body that claims authority over systematic naming of all chemicals is "silasequioxane". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.31.117 (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ooops. I realized that I made two typographical errors. Here's the relevant sentence with the correct spelling: Even though the name "silsesquioxane" commonly was used by researchers for decades, the name given by the international body that claims authority over systematic naming of all chemicals is "silasesquioxane". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.31.117 (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)