Testors liquid polystyrene cement

Testors liquid polystyrene cement seems to be pretty much useless.
It's massively weaker than EMA Plastic Weld. Serves me right for not
noticing I'd opened my last bottle...

Guy
Reply to
Just zis Guy, you know?
Loading thread data ...
Don't know if you can in the UK, but here in the US I just buy MEK (methly-ethyl-ketone) at the local home improvement store. Lots cheaper and the same stuff.
Reply to
Larry Blanchard
Methyl Ethyl Ketone is an official scientiific name too.
MEK was originally this, but they changed over to Butanone keeping the original trade name.
Reply to
Christopher A. Lee
In article , Christopher A. Lee writes
No, it isn't. The IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) has a very formalised set of rules for naming chemical compounds, and it is only possible to have one valid name under those rules. The name for this compound is butanone.
Even under the previous system of nomenclature (which was superseded around half a century ago) the compound should have been called ethyl methyl ketone, as the radicals were to be quoted in alphabetical order. The name methyl ethyl ketone probably achieved popularity for no other reason than that it has a nice acronym, but I doubt it has ever been a "correct" name.
David
Reply to
David Littlewood
And if Wikipedia is correct, that name is not butanone. It's "butan-2-one".
Aside:
I'm always suspicious of things claiming to be official. Who says is IUPAC the only body that can decide official names?
All kinds of things call themselves official, not all of them desirable. I recommend being unambiguous and referring to the naming body concerned, instead of saying "official".
-- Richard
Reply to
Richard Tobin
In article , Richard Tobin writes
Well, Wikipedia is wrong. The IUPAC rules do not allow for redundant information; since there is only one possible structure for the name butanone, then any further specification is otiose.
It is the internationally-recognised body for the subject. There is no other.
I did.
I was only trying to help the OP to find the thing he was looking for, not start a war, but if people follow up with misinformation it does need to be corrected.
David
Reply to
David Littlewood
Interesting. The IUPAC provisional recommendation "Preferred IUPAC Names" (2004) uses butan-2-one as an example of a preferred IUPAC name (PIN) on pages 49 and 91:
formatting link
As far as I can see there is no more recent version.
It also gives "ethyl methyl ketone" as the correct form of the functional class name of that chemical (page 49), so I don't see that that isn't also an "official" name.
-- Richard
Reply to
Richard Tobin
In article , Richard Tobin writes
Interesting, thanks for finding that. The "2" is omitted in other IUPAC documents I have looked at, see for example
formatting link
Seems to be a moving target - and para 14.3.3 of the document you cite even suggests the "2" is not required, as it is not needed to give an unambiguous structure.
Not sure if it ever got adopted, but still I agree influential.
...but not a preferred name (PIN) (and "methyl ethyl ketone" has never been correct).
Much too far OT though! For the non-chemistry-obsessed railway enthusiasts, the message is, if you need it, search for methyl ethyl ketone, MEK, or butanone, trade sellers will almost certainly be using one of those names - which is all I set out to say to the OP.
David
Reply to
David Littlewood
It's the body recognised by the various international professional societies of chemists, and will generally also be referenced by journals (so if you submit a paper that does not use IUPAC names it may be rejected or amended).
Science works by consensus, IUPAC is the body that codifies the consensus on naming. Guy
Reply to
Just zis Guy, you know?
There has to be a common chemical nomenclature for the same reason there has to a common biological one: people need to know exactly what you are talking about.
Wolf K.
Reply to
Wolf K

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.