Talk:Olympicene

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Olympics Low‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title picture

The picture at the top right of the page is wrong, it is not the same molecule as was reported on chemspider. I can draw a better molecule using ORTEP. I draw it using chem draw and then transformed the drawing into a xyz table which I then loaded into ORTEP. Then I used ORTEP to write a POVray file.

Here is the POVray file for a space filling view of the molecule. I will upload the pictures soon.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The methylene-bridged compound is not planar. It is a benzo[c]phenanthene derivative. The loss of a hydrogen gives the radical PAH of five rings. This ought to bemore planar due to the resonance. Bothof these wereknow in the 1960s and studied by Erich Clar and others. The methylene-bridged compound was originally reported in 1937.This compound is just being reemphasized by UK chemists because the Olympics are in London. That the IBM collaborators took an image is only an extension of their work with pentacene. The synthesis may be cleaner and more efficient,but that remains to be seen through a repeat experiment by another laboratory. Fetz the chemist (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, maybe I was wrong, have you got a refernece for the 1937 report of the compound ?Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]