Chromatography Forum

Hi everybody

I just had a random thought that all common acids are qualified by word acid (e.g. acetic acid, phosphoric acid, triflouroacetic acid, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid), but why not common bases are qualified by word base (e.g. sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, ammonia).

Any comments.

How about phenol?

The old name for phenol is carbolic acid.

Base, as used in the context of Acid-Base theory, is too young ( late 19th century? ). Centuries ago, acids were usually defined by their taste and effect on litmus. The chemical use of "base" was totally different, eg base metal, noble metal.

The chemicals that neutralised acids and returned litmus solutions to blue were called alkalis, and were often also corrosive ( caustic ), NaOH = Caustic Soda, KOH = Caustic Potash. Gaseous or very volatile liquids were called "spirits", NH3 = Spirit of Hartshorn.

The modern use of base probably was introduced around the time that Arrhenius ( 1884 ) was trying to make sense of acids and alkalis.

I suspect a WWW search would find greater detail, but even in chemistry nomenclature, the present is often constrained by the past.

No matter how hard systematic naming fans try to have a coherent system, human nature prevails, hence many common chemical names have to be accomodated into naming systems.

Bruce Hamilton

In other words...

Because that's the way we've always done it.

Acids live in a more unified society, and they are proud to be called acids. Bases live in a society with many different ethnic groups. There is little that they consider to have in common, and they are more proud of their individual heritage.

But both a functional democratic societies...

And why "tuna fish"?

And "adult children"?

Living "at home" (I've always lived at home, that's wherever I live)?
And if children of homeless people live with the parents, do they live "at home"?

Why "heads up" when a stray ball comes your way, shouldn't it be "heads down"?

Lots of questions to ask Yogi Berra....

One wit (I wish I could remember who) pointed out that modern English is the product of Norman men-at-arms trying to pick up Saxon barmaids. The resulting language is no more legitimate than any of the other products of those unions.

Dear all:
Perhaps this is not related to chromatography.

It is difficult to change a habit, unless there is a catastrophic event...

When we work in lab, we use balances that weigh in mg, or g, or kg. When we go to the supermarket, we buy meat/fish/veg in pound. We use vol. flask in mL or Liter, but we buy gasoline in gallon. I never see anyone protests the gas stations not showing volume in Liter! And the legal speed limit is in mph (not m/s or km/h). Anyone contesting the court for speeding? (I would not dare)

I once had a linguistic course (for general ed) with Prof. Stabler. He is a bright expert in linguistics. Perhaps 'Jitender Madan' should take a few courses in the humanities as well?

Alfred.

"Acids live in a more unified society, and they are proud to be called acids. Bases live in a society with many different ethnic groups."

Some truth there - alkali is of arabic origin - most words beginning with al are e.g alcohol,

Ralph

No matter how hard systematic naming fans try to have a coherent system, human nature prevails, hence many common chemical names have to be accomodated into naming systems.

Ah yes, I distinctly remember as a freshman, just after getting back the test on the IUPAC naming system, the prof explaining that all our hard work was for naught--no one uses IUPAC.

The next week I was trying to figure out what the hell "methylene chloride" is. A double bond with only one carbon? How does that work?

IUPAC hey? I remember the number of lectures we attended for this! Funny though isnt it, Is anyone out there even using 50% of the knowledge they gained whilst studying for their Degrees???

Salma.

Is anyone out there even using 50% of the knowledge they gained whilst studying for their Degrees???

Salma.

Maybe not even 5%. I guess as a chromatographer, or most sorts of analysis you learn most of what you need for your jobs at work because universities just aren't set up to teach practical analysis (well mine wasn't, it had 2 manual injection GC's between 100 undergraduates). So you get your general how techniques work theories, which never made much sense to me until I was using the techniques and could see things happening. A bit more on interpreting NMR and M/S. The majority has to be taught in the first few months of your job (or student placement year) and I don't think the learning ever really stops...

I agree completely, at University, everytime we had to analyse something by GC, or NMR, one of the laboratory technicians would do it for us because we 'didnt have the experience to use it and might break the instrument'!

I also distinctly remember during a lecture on GC when the prof said, "We're not going to cover packed columns, because no one uses packed columns anymore."

And on my first job out of school doing chromatography four out of the five GCs I used had packed columns. (One of those GCs used an ElCD detector, which, I found out, had been developed at the university I'd attended. Yet, I'd never heard of it.)

I also find it odd, in retrospect, that I learned more about intrumental analysis in the organic lab course than I did in the analytical lab course.