|WikiProject Chemistry||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Ewen, thanks for starting this article. I've always wanted to know more about isomers. BTW, you can combine an external link with visible text like this:
Thanks, Ed. Nice tip: Next, I'll put some graphics in. Actually, I have to go now, but I'll do some more on Tuesday.
- Thanks for stopping by. Somehow, you inspired me to write about Biot-Savart's Law and Jean Baptiste Biot. I'll put in the Chiral Centers link. --Ed Poor
Wouldn't be better to have this page named Racemate, and making Racemic the link to it ? --Mykhal 15:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree, I also suggest creating separate pages for the three types of racemates. --Klusiwurm 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- The 'Racemate' redirects to 'Racemic' already. I can't see any advantage swapping the two pages so 'Racemate' is the main one... Ewen 13:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I believe it should definitely be moved because an adjective like "racemic" should not be the title of an article, just like "retarded" (etc) is not an article but redirects to mental retardation. "Racemic mixture" or "Racemate" would either be fine, whichever is more common (the former in my experience). - Draeco 05:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible for someone to spell out why some medications sold are "Racemic" and others are only one half of the racemic?. In purchasing the generic of Ritilin, I was sold both methylphenidate and Methylin. One aparently Racemic and the other not. Is there a difference in efficacy? If not, why sell racemic at all? Ed Baker 3 July 2006
There are some laws now that new chiral pharmaceuticals have to be tested for the effects of both enantiomers separately, and maybe they also have to be sold in the enantiopure form - but I'm not too much an expert with these laws. Maybe it also involves restesting old drugs. Apart from that it's a matter of cost, producing a racemate is often cheaper, and even if one enantiomer is inactive producing 50% inactive material might still be cheaper than making 100% active material. I'll try to work on this page somewhen next week, am a bit busy now... --Klusiwurm 08:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Add Thalidomide to the list of pharmaceuticals
This sentence: A racemate is optically inactive: because the two isomers rotate plane-polarised light in opposite directions, a racemic mixture does not rotate plane-polarised light. sounds choppy. I'm not familiar enough with the chemistry to rewrite this sentence, but I think it's saying that a racemic mixture doesn't rotate plane-polarised light because each isomer (each half) rotates the light in opposite directions and thus cancel each other out. But having the same phrase with opposite meanings in the same sentence just sounds bizzare. Reader: "Because it rotates in opposite directions, it does not rotate? But you just said it rotates!" lawlz 126.96.36.199 08:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I deleted a speculatory parenthetical ending in a question mark as well as one that started with 'Warning:...' Come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Citation: The crystallization behavior of (±)-cis-α-[Co(dmtrien)(NO2)2]Cl· 0.5H2O 1 and (±)-cis-α-[Co(dmtrien)(NO2)2]I 2† (dmtrien = 3,6-dimethyl-3,6-diazaoctane-1,8-diamine), Jiwen Cai, Jozef Myrczek, Hyungphil Chun and Ivan Bernal , J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans., 1998, 4155-4160 DOI: 10.1039/A806094K 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Why different? The crystals are pure.
The melting point of the racemic conglomerate is always lower than that of the pure enantiomer. Addition of a small amount of one enantiomer to the conglomerate increases the melting point.
Why would the melting points be different? All the mixtures consist of pure enantiomer crystals, they are just smaller in the conglomerate. Are interface effects so important to the melting point? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)