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<[log in to unmask]> 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
>> [log in to unmask]
>
>
--
=======================================================================
All Things Serve the Beam
=======================================================================
David J. Schuller
modern man in a post-modern world
MacCHESS, Cornell University
[log in to unmask]
