Talk:Adipic acid

Adipic Acid as source for nitrous oxide
Looks like there is a significant source of nitrous oxide in the oxidation step of KA.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adipic acid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518091151/http://pcinylon.com/index.php/markets-covered/adipic-acid to http://pcinylon.com/index.php/markets-covered/adipic-acid

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Strange formula
What did you mean by OC6H9-2-NO in this edit of yours? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Eric, I am trying to recall... but probably 2-nitrosocyclohexanone. The pseudohalide NO in place of an alpha H on cyclohexanone.  --Smokefoot (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

A picture of the compound: to be or not to be?
I added an image of a sample of adipic acid, which was later removed by Michael D. Turnbull. I understand why it has been done, but it is clearly stated in the description that the compound isn't bought from a supplier but is self-made. I doubt there might be any mistake in the synthesis. I've prepared the compound by the reaction given on the page as its main production pathway, using OrgSyn as an additional source of information. I think the picture may be put back as all background information is given and there is no reason for me to falsify the sample. Dima Minyailo (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether your image is indeed of a sample of adipic acid: I am prepared to assume good faith that it is, although I obviously can't verify that for myself. The point worth debating is whether this particular image (added here for discussion) is appropriate for the Chembox of the article. Looking at the examples given in MOS:CHEM, it is of the type illustrated for EDTA, which the MOS comments is inappropriate for a chembox. My personal view is that the casual reader will just see an ill-defined white powder against a white background, which won't assist their understanding of the topic. In addition, I believe that it is bad practice to illustrate samples without provenance: in this case it would be easy to show a bottle from a reputable supplier with a sample alongside. I will be interested to have the views of other page watchers here and will post a link at WP:CHEMS to draw attention to this discussion if there are no other contributors after a few days. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * .... Some prior discussion of the general principles at WT:WikiProject_Chemicals/Archive_2020, which led to the current MOS entry. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Turnbull, but can understand Dima's puzzlement. Here is another angle: Wikipedia avoids "original research" (OR).  From that perspective, publishing an image of a self-made sample is inappropriate.  If one wants to show a sample of adipic acid, take the sample from a commercial bottle and include that bottle in the image of the powder.  --Smokefoot (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll try to make a photo of a known sample in the future. Still, I don't think the picture can be considered an OR, since all the methods used had already been published and were well-known, hence not original.
 * I'm sorry for wasting your time on curing my illiteracy, I haven't even thought such pictures may be a topic of vivid debate. Thank you all! Dima Minyailo (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * this exchange is not a waste of time, but a valued exchange. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * .... agreed! Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)