Talk:Monomethylhydrazine

The Chemical Formula

Hello, I think the formula for MMH is wrong. It should be CH_3_NH_NH_2 , i.e, an extra hydrogen so that the nitrogen has the correct number of bonds.

I believe that technically it is OK to list all the Hs together and all the Ns together. So CH3N2H3 would be correct, though not too convenient for understanding the structure. Most (if not all) organic chemists would know that N needs to form three bonds and so would assume NH2 on the end rather than NH3. For cases where the structure can be confusing, it's either best to just assume the most common structure (i.e. nitrogen has three bonds rather than forming an ylide with three hydrogens on the end N and none on the middle N), or better yet to just draw out a structure. I've posted a structure on the page, so provided Wikipedia accepts it, that should clear up most confusion. Good point though, that system of naming can be quite confusing, especially in structures like acetic acid when it's loosely listed as C2H4O2 rather than CH3COOH.

Quantum0726 04:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is also possible & correct to list the (empirical) chemical formula of CN2H5 or CH5N2 are also correct, though not indicitive of its structure at all. I can't understand why people get bent out of shape that the chemical formula of a substance can be written in more than one different way. (CH3)N(NH3) is also correct, though a little deceptive.

Rather than being uppity and writing words to the effect that "this is what chemists and chemical engineers can do and will do", it is far better to remember that the Wikipedia is an encylopedia for the general reader (for example, someone who has studied high school chemistry), and not a textbook or monograph for experts. Also, there is a big advantage in writing more information in the same amount of space that one can and does use to write less information. In this specific example for monomethyl hydrazine, the chemical formula (CH3)(NH)(NH2), or CH3(NH)NH2, tells the general reader a lot more than CH3N2H3 or CN2H5 does. I'm actually an engineer with a strong background in Information Theory and the theory of efficient communications, but I can tell at a glance that CH3 is a methyl group, and that NH2 is an amine group, and furthermore that the NH in the middle ties it all together into one molecule. To reiterate, the goal must be to efficiently communicate to a non-expert in chemistry or chemical engineering, rather than to engage in the jargon and whatnot of an expert.98.67.99.40 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI

In this exerpt from a statement in the article: "...engines of the NASA "Space Shuttle" or STS", the term "STS" does not, in fact, refer to the Space Shuttle specifically, rather the entire assembly (external fuel tank and solid rocket boosters along with the Space Shuttle itself). The acronym STS means "Shuttle Transport System." Picky, I know, but in the interest of good information, I'll make the change.75.112.129.242 12:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized Spelling

Is it "monomethylhydrazine" or "monomethyl hydrazine"?

Either one of these will work fine and will be well understood. Sometimes in English, it is rather amazing that one word or phrase has two equally-good spellings, such as in "judgment" or "judgement"; or as some people write, "sports car" or "sportscar", though I dislike the second of these.98.67.99.40 (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be written close up, as "monomethylhydrazine". The second option, "monomethyl hydrazine", is understandable, but incorrect by the rules of chemical nomenclature. To be technical, the name is substitutive nomenclature (always written close up), not radicofunctional nomenclature (written with spaces between the terms in English): I don't think this compound can be namened in radicofunctional nomenclature. Physchim62 (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mil-spec reference

I added a reference and link to the military specification for MMH. Bosef1 (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monomethylhydrazine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320093619/https://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/basic_profile.cfm?ident_number=18796 to https://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/basic_profile.cfm?ident_number=18796

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]