In the previous post I pondered the colour of Monastral blue (copper phthalocyanine). Something did not quite fit, and so I speculated that perhaps some oxidation of the pigment might give a new species. This species (Cambridge code FEGJOQ) comprises two parts of copper phthalocyanine, 1 part of the corresponding cation, and 1 part of triodide anion.
The story of Monastral is not about a character in the Magic flute, but is a classic of chemical serendipity, collaboration between industry and university, theoretical influence, and of much else.
In this earlier post, I noted some aspects of the calculated structures of both Z- and B-DNA duplexes. These calculations involved optimising the positions of around 250-254 atoms, for d(CGCG) 2 and d(ATAT) 2, an undertaking which has taken about two months of computer time!
My colleague Bill Griffith has again come up with another colour challenge: that of the ancient semi-precious stone Lapis Lazuli , mined in the mountains of Afghanistan for more than 6000 years and used by painters in some medieval paintings of the Virgin, the Wilton diptych etc.
One of my chemical heroes is William Perkin, who in 1856 famously (and accidentally) made the dye mauveine as an 18 year old whilst a student of August von Hofmann, the founder of the Royal College of Chemistry (at what is now Imperial College London). Perkin went on to found the British synthetic dyestuffs and perfumeries industries.
Much of chemistry is about bonds, but sometimes it can also be about anti-bonds. It is also true that the simplest of molecules can have quite subtle properties. Thus most undergraduate courses in chemistry deal with how to describe the bonding in the diatomics of the first row of the periodic table.
This story starts with a calixarene, a molecule (suitably adorned with substituents) frequently used as a host to entrap a guest and perchance make the guest do something interesting. Such a calixarene was at the heart of a recent story where an attempt was made to induce it to capture cyclobutadiene in its cavity.
When Watson and Crick (WC) constructed their famous 3D model for DNA, they had to decide whether to make the double helix left or right handed.
Science is about making connections. Plenty are on show in Watson and Crick’s famous 1953 article on the structure of DNA[cite]10.1038/171737a0[/cite] but often with the tersest of explanations. Take for example their statement “ Both chains follow right-handed helices ”. Where did that come from?
Is there a preferred pack size for electrons on the move? Or put less flamboyantly, is there an optimum, and a maximum number of arrows (electron pairs) that one might push in revealing the mechanism of a concerted reaction? A sort of village-instinct for electrons.
