Re: impurities in CDCl3


"Richard Schultz" <schultr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eh4dt5$d6n$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <nUhZg.13918$GR.3162@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
lucasea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
: "Richard Schultz" <schultr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: news:eh354v$rcq$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:> In article <Yi8Zg.17291$6S3.13760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
:> lucasea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
:>
:> The reason that I refuse to become one of his groupies
:
: I resent being considered somebody's "groupie" for defending a
reasonable
: statement that he made that you attacked.

I'm not sure in what sense he made a reasonable statement.

In the sense that it was true, and didn't aim to insult anybody or try to
make them look bad. More than I can say for your posts, by the way. Jerk.


The OP said that
he had an NMR spectrum that consisted of a quartet at 6.0 and a doublet at
2.0. Uncle Al told him that ethanol was added to CDCl3

Yes, in response to an earlier post in this very thread, suggesting other
stabilizers are used that *could* explain the NMR (but actually don't).
You're so quick to try to find something to criticize about Al, that you
didn't even bother to read what he was responding to.


and breaks down
to phosgene

No, he said the CDCl3 breaks down, not the ethanol


(which lacks H atoms)

So what?


and HCl (which does not match the reported
NMR spectrum).

Again, so what, nobody said it does.



His comment may have been "reasonable," but it was completely
useless as an answer to the OP.

Actually, no, it was a very useful answer. It provided the following
information:

1) The stabilizer in the CDCl3 is not the cause of the observed peaks (as
suggested by another poster in the same thread)
2) The HCl that exists in CDCl3 may well be related to the actual cause of
the observed peaks.

Just because it took a Savior like you to come along and grace us with The
Complete and Final Answer doesn't mean that no other pieces of information
are useful.

"OK, listen up everyone. If Dickie Schultz chooses to grace you with The
Full And Complete Answer, as blessed by The Dickness himself, then you must
ignore everyone else who tries to help you find the answer. They are pieces
of *** and not fit to grovel in The ***'s sewage, and Schultz is God's
Gift to All of Chemistry and Especially Sci.Chem." Pompous ass.


:> is that he apparently refuses to acknolwedge even in principle that
there
:> might be something that he does not know.
:
: I do agree with your characterization there, it is a minimally annoying
: quirk of his. However, it's foolish to try to make that point by
pointing
: out he's wrong, when in fact he was right and trying to be helpful.

In what sense was Uncle Al "right" given that he singularly failed to
identify the compound in question?

What information did Al give that was factually incorrect?


Only Uncle Al's groupies consider his
propensity to make statements that are untrue

What did he say that was untrue in this thread?


a "minimally annoying quirk"
and consider him "helpful" when he makes a statement that is completely
irrelevant to the question posed.

No, I would put it another way. Only people with a pathological need to
make Al look bad would see his inaccuracies as anything more than minimally
annoying. Get over yourself, will you already? Your constant carping at Al
is far, far more annoying than he has *ever* been, and whether you choose to
acknowledge it or not, he has provided far, far more informative, creative
and helpful content that you likely ever will.


:> You'll note that at no point did Uncle Al even hint that dichloroethane
:> might be the mystery compound, even though the spectrum pretty clearly
:> indicated a methyl group bound to CHXX. It took a lowly physical
chemist
:> to come up with that suggestion.
:
: So what? You want some sort of medal? The question asked was "how is
CDCl3
: stabilized". He answered it, accurately.

The question asked was

### When I do overnight measurements on my compounds, I'm seeing extra
### peaks at 6.0 (quartet) and 2.0 ppm (doublet), and now I'm wondering
what
### compound this might be.

Nowhere in there do I see the OP asking how CDCl3 stabilized. I do know
that
in the CDCl3 that our NMR lab uses, the solvent is stabilized with silver
(metal), and that the head of our NMR lab (who has more than 30 years of
experience) was quite insistent that it was unlikely in the extreme that
the DCE came from the solvent itself.

Yes, I agree. So what. Did Al say that it did? I would speculate that it
could come from oxyhydrochlorination of the ethanol, in the presence of air,
light and O2. However, Al didn't even do that--he just said they were
present.


: He also, accurately and helpfully, pointed out the ubiquitous presence
: of HCl. He didn't purport to answer the question "what is the
impurity".

Since his post was in direct response to the question that I quoted above,
it is very hard for me to understand (unless you have psychic powers of
which I am unaware) how anyone was supposed to know that he was not
answering
the question that was asked.

: Denigrating his helpful contribution because he didn't identify the
unknown,

His answer strongly implied that the unknown was either HCl or ethanol.

No, it didn't. I sure didn't read it that way. Your hard-on to make him
look bad led you to infer that.


: and pointing out that *you* had to swoop in as the White Knight and
: Savior of All From Al's Ignorance, is nothing more than a symptom of
: your own insecurity.

Why is it that when Uncle Al gives a totally irrelevant answer to a
question,
he is "trying to be helpful," but when I give an answer that *may* be
correct
and is at least consistent with the data that is presented, I am revealing
a "symptom of my own insecurity"?

The symptoms of your own insecurity had nothing to do with your (also
helpful) reply to the question. If you had left it go at that, I would have
found your post informative and helpful. Instead, all the pompous baggage
that you insisted on foisting on us as well badly overweighed any
helpfulness you might have given.


Remind me again -- why is it that I'm
not supposed to consider you one of Uncle Al's groupies (I could use a
more accurate if less polite term)?

Because I am an nothing more than an objective observer. I find many of
Al's posts to be pompous and occasionally inaccurate...but many of them do
contain nuggets of creativity and wisdom that you are perhaps too full of
yourself to even see or understand. You, however, have lost all ability to
think objectively about this, and have such a hard-on to make Al look bad,
that you go around calling neutral, casual observers "Al's groupies" because
they don't fall down and worship the ground you walk on, and join you in
your pointless crusade against Al. You're worse than AP.


: Let it go! You don't have to be a "groupie", but you also certainly
: don't have to go out of your way to point out flaws when he's accurate
: and trying to be helpful.

Here is a question for you: the OP presented an NMR spectrum and asked
for help in identifying the compound. One poster gave him the name of
a compound that was consistent with the NMR spectrum. Can you name that
poster?

And another person also gave factual and relevant information. Can you name
that person?

Oh, fer Chrissakes, will *somebody* give this insecure pompous ass a medal
so that he will feel appreciated?????

Eric Lucas


.

Quantcast