bump

Bu M P

I have also emailed the cotton people (the "fabric of our lives" folks) this question. I'm proud that it may be the smartest question ever filled into their contact us form :)

Basic cotton is probably enough. I'm sure dyes can add to it...although I don't think dyes and stuff changes it's molecular structure...I'm not a scientist. I don't know.

99% cellulose.

Yeah. This was extremely helpful. You are welcome. :^|

Thanks, I love/hate over thinking this. I just hate when I have a completed design that people are enjoying and then someone points out a logical mistake :/

If anyone does that, just ostracize them.

Forever.

I don't think the cellulose structure is modified during the fabric making process. Additives shouldn't change it.

The structure is correct, but the bracket-like things are confusing, they look like part of the structure, as if several parallel chains were linked by their ends (not the case). They should just be brackets (with a little n) indicating repetition.



They could also be removed altogether, if the next elements are partly visible.



Also, If anyone does that, just ostracize them.

Chemistry is so fun!

Here's what I based my image off of:


I can add the "n" for repetition, but short of redesigning the entire thing, is it necessary to adjust the structure further?

Nevermind, I reread your comment, Manupix, I'll just add the "n", I kind of like the brackets :)

Alright, updated:

I made the dashed lines on the brackets a little tighter to make the brackets seem separate from the chain and then added the "n" for repetition. Does it all look correct?

and a shorter chain, which looks better?

dammit,

I looked better, and there are a few problems.
The French wikipedia article was more explicit.

The monomer is made of 2 units which are rotated respectively to each other, as in the structure I posted but not in yours or your source. The orientation of units is alternating throughout the whole chain.

Also an H is missing in your source, and hence your own structure (bottom left corner).
Actually H is usually omitted (unless linked to something other than C), because implicit, but if you put them in then you have to put them all.

Lastly, the way you drew the thicker lines as double lines is confusing, because they look like double bonds which would be plain false. The thick lines are conventionally used to denote perspective, they are not compulsory. Just get rid of them!

From what I read, 'cationic cellulose' is used in artificial fibers such as rayon. Nothing to do with cotton I think.

Manupix, now that I have looked closer at your image, I see that yours has a couple considerable differences from my cellulose example. Which is correct?

Also, I remembered that the first portion of my chain does not have a single Hydrogen on the bottom left, and the next 2 do. Does it make sense to have only have 2 in the chain, seeing as the repetition would be 1,2,1,2,1,2 instead of the 1,2,2,1,2,2,1,2,2 of the first design's repetition?

Also make sure that the OH groups are linked to the chain through the O, not by the middle of OH.

The shorter chain would be truer to the spirit if you include the rotation!

You answered one of my questions before I posted, thanks, I'll add the H to the first and get rid of the dougle lines :) Thanks so much!

lol @ crossposting!

Missing H: again, it's all of them or none (except these in the OH groups that must be kept anyway).

One main difference between my structure and yours is mine shows the realistic "chair-like", non-plane shape of the cycles, whereas yours shows them flat. Both are OK (matter of convention again), yours is better suited to the design.

Here's the updated with the "twisted" portion, I didn't quite follow your OH advice, let me know if this doesn't comply with what you were saying:

The OH thing is more of a nitpick, disturbs me but there isn't really an ambiguity. It's supposed to represent the actual ...C-O-H

More importantly (and this was present before as well as in your source), there is one O too many either at the left or right end of the chain. There is only one O linking the cycles on each side, but repeating what's in the brackets now would have every other link made of 2, like this:
... cycle-O-O-cycle-O-cycle-O-O-cycle-O-cycle...
when it's
... cycle-O-cycle-O-cycle-O-cycle-O-cycle...

Another nitpick: on each cycle one of the OH groups has a longer, angled bond, in fact there's a C at that angle (not explicitly shown as all of the other Cs - it's even a CH). The short part (C-C) of this bond could be made longer, and the OH further away. I understand you don't want to change the angle of the C-OH part because it looks good with the argyle!
In fact the invisible C could be placed at the diamonds point so that the C-OH bond would follow the diamond edge, wouldn't that be nicer?

We need a better method to talk back and forth :)

I get your first point, I'll remove the first O so the repetition makes sense.

The second point, is the C where the OH angle bends? That is the only unlabeled angle I can think it might belong to.

I guessed where the Carbon was supposed to go, I believe this is what you were referring to:

My only real changes in this version were straightening lines and (attempting) to center the design.

That was the right place, but I didn't mean you should add the C! I just meant that the vertical part of the line should be longer, so as to be more visible, and bring the angled part (and the OH) to a place where it might look nicer.

In this kind of representation, Cs are always omitted (unless ambiguous) because they would crowd the place! There's supposed to be one at each single angle.

We need a better method to talk back and forth :) True!

Haha, cross-posting again!

Getting good!

Duh!
That's the one thing I DO remember about CARBON BONDING. The things I let slip 15 years after learning them :)

So, it all looks good? You're getting credited in helping me with this design for sure :)

Final (scientifically speaking)?

I won't bother posting another pic, but I did notice that a Hydrogen denotation was floating without a marker at the beggining of the second cycle, I fixed that up/

Cool!

Now strictly on the design side of things, the structure is not well aligned on the argyle, and the -O- cycle bonds are not aligned themselves. But I guess this is only a rough version, right?

Maybe a different option for the brackets would be to have them cut across the O (and add the right side O again after all, hehe, it's unambiguous this way) so they could be centered.

Yeah, I'll do a final draft now. my problem with the alignment is mathematical. The odd number of points needed for the bond makes for an uneven set of background diamonds. If I stop on the darker diamonds on one side and not the other, the "stitched" diamonds can't end symmetrically. :/ I'll play with it on my final version :)

I have submitted it with an explanation and a credit to you, Manupix. Thanks again!

Wow. Overwhelmed by science.

Pass! XD

I'm learning!

It's up for vote :)