کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
1312129 | 1499165 | 2015 | 6 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
• I summarize the history of [CpFe(CO)2]2.
• I present arguments for representing [CpFe(CO)2]2 with an Fe–Fe bond.
• I draw an analogy between representation of molecules and translation.
In a 2012 essay, Green, Green and Parkin noted that certain bridged carbonyl complexes, including [CpFe(CO)2]2 (Cp = η5-cyclopentadienyl), are commonly depicted with an explicitly-drawn metal–metal bond in textbooks, and presented a rationale for why that constitutes a misrepresentation. Here I briefly summarize the history of that compound, in which Cotton played a major part, and try to show that there are at least equally valid justifications for keeping the M–M bond in the picture. More generally, I will argue against the idea of a single “best” representation of a complex molecule, by drawing upon analogies to literary translation.
In a 2012 essay, Green, Green and Parkin noted that certain bridged carbonyl complexes, including [CpFe(CO)2]2 (Cp = η5-cyclopentadienyl), are commonly depicted with an explicitly-drawn metal–metal bond in textbooks, and presented a rationale for why that constitutes a misrepresentation. Here I briefly summarize the history of that compound, in which Cotton played a major part, and try to show that there are at least equally valid justifications for keeping the M–M bond in the picture. More generally, I will argue against the idea of a single “best” representation of a complex molecule, by drawing upon analogies to literary translation.Figure optionsDownload as PowerPoint slide
Journal: Inorganica Chimica Acta - Volume 424, 1 January 2015, Pages 14–19