If the original poster could engineer a few disulfides or other covalent
linkages in there, I would drop my objections, and be even more impressed.
On 06/18/12 11:48, Jacob Keller wrote:
Okay, I wiki'd it, and according to them seems you're right: it says
they are "typically connected by covalent chemical bonds." So either
we revert to the etymological use of "polymer," or move onward to
"myriomer!" (assuming the cross-bred "multimer" is out of the
question!)
JPK
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:37 AM, David Schuller<dj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
On 06/18/12 11:17, Jacob Keller wrote:
But anyway, what is
wrong with calling her structures "polymers?" Is there a subtle
covalent insinuation to "polymer?"
subtle? No, it's not subtle.
--
=======================================================================
All Things Serve the Beam
=======================================================================
David J. Schuller
modern man in a post-modern world
MacCHESS, Cornell University
schul...@cornell.edu
--
=======================================================================
All Things Serve the Beam
=======================================================================
David J. Schuller
modern man in a post-modern world
MacCHESS, Cornell University
schul...@cornell.edu
