Talk:Supermolecule

Note
Please do not merge this page into supramolecular assembly or to any other page; this term is a stand-alone topic and very important in the history of the molecule, as the case with molecule, biomolecule, and macromolecule. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 16:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Revised defintion
I think recent definition of supermolecule is vague. For instance a supermolecule “is any very large complex molecule” and that it “is generally considered to be bigger in size and structure than that of a macromolecule.” However a macromolecule is defined as “The literal definition of the term macromolecule implies any large molecule.”  The definition of a macromolecule would therefore seem to include that of a supramolecule. I have revised definition to clarify ambiguities of what “is” and “is not” a supermolecule. M stone 22:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, well let's try to find some better sources for the intro definition. It seems you simply used my two sources, but modified the words to your views. --Sadi Carnot 16:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current references are inadequate. They don't really address the term supermolecule but are instead more general references to the entire area of supramolecular chemistry. I was unable to find any good reviews on the term. I look forward to seeing what you are able to dig up though! M stone 22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Propose condensed definition
I have looked more into the definition of supramolecule. It seems that that the term is important because it predates the field of "supramolecular chemistry." I suggest dumping most of the more speculative intro paragraph that compares the term to supramolecular assembly and emphasizing the historical significance. I think that it would be better to state that the term is not well defined but is often used in a similar manner to supramolecular assembly. M stone 20:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)