Big Chemical Encyclopedia

Chemical substances, components, reactions, process design ...

Articles Figures Tables About

Lapworth-Robinson theory

Brock, William H. The Norton History of Chemistry, 506-537. New York W.W. Norton Co., 1993. This is a superb discussion of the early electronic theory of organic chemistry including the Lapworth-Robinson collaboration and Robinson-Ingold rivalry. [Pg.107]

The Paris school included Robert Lespieau (18641947), Georges Dupont (18841958), Charles Prevost (18991983), and Albert Kirrmann (19001974). Principal figures in the London-Manchester school were Arthur Lapworth (18721941), Thomas Martin Lowry (18741936), Robert Robinson (18861975), Jocelyn Thorpe (18721940), and Christopher Ingold (18931970). A broadly defined German research school pursuing ionic and electronic theories of reaction mechanisms in organic chemistry does not enter into this history, because it did not exist. [Pg.28]

Prevost and Kirrmann cite Ingold s experiments providing evidence of the inadequacy of Lapworth and Robinson s theory of alternate induced polarity in their 1931 memoir (1320). Their reference is to Ingold,... [Pg.177]

Lapworth and Robinson, "Remarks on some Recent Contributions to the Theory of Induced Alternate Polarities in a Chain of Atoms," Trans.Far.Soc. 19 (1923) 503505, on 504505. [Pg.208]

As is well known, Robinson became convinced that Ingold had not given him proper credit for his, and Lapworth s, role in the development of an electronic theory of organic reaction mechanisms. In reply to a furious letter from Robinson, Thorpe tried to reassure Robinson about Ingold. [Pg.210]

An influential textbook in physical organic chemistry by Lapworth s student, William Waters, appeared in 1935 with an introduction by Lowry giving an account of recent developments as Lapworth saw them. 132 But, as Robinson knew, the history of a theory and the history of a discipline in large measure is created by historical introductions and the systems of citations in the most-cited articles and books in a field. [Pg.211]

The discussion and classification of reagents is masterful in identifying Ingold s new nomenclature and principles with more widely known oxidation-reduction and acid-base theory. The 1953 lectures at Cornell University, published as Structure and Mechanism in Organic Chemistry, follow this same strategy, showing how old classification schemes overlap with each other and how apparent inconsistencies disappear as old schemes are incorporated into the new one. Nineteenth-century Berzelian electrochemical dualism, revived by Lapworth and Robinson in the cationic/anionic schema, disappears into the electrophilic/nucleophilic language. [Pg.232]

In fact, Cuy s idea was not completely original. Many years before, Fliirscheim [4] and Fry [5], had postulated similar theories of alternating polarities, and the idea was soon extended by Hanke and Koessler [6], Kermack and Robinson [7] and Stieglitz [8] in order to predict the site of reactivity in both aliphatic and aromatic systems. However, as has been stated by A.E. Remick [9], "it would profit us but little to pursue further the similarities and differences of these theories of alternating polarity. Suffice it to say that they were eventually shown to be wrong [10] [11] at least in regard to saturated molecules". In spite of this, it is worthwhile referring here to the work of Lapworth. [Pg.41]

Electrophiles (i.e., electron-deficient species) are of fundamental importance to chemistry. The concept of nucleophiles (lit. nucleus seeking ) and electrophiles (lit. electron seeking ) was suggested by Ingold following similar views implied by Lapworth s description of anionoid and cationoid reagents, Robinson s concepts, and Lewis s theory of bases (electron donors) and acids (electron acceptors).1... [Pg.1]

The reason was the first ever use of curly or curved arrows, in this case to represent tautomerism in A,A-dimethylamino derivatives. While the arrows were not then meant to indicate movement of electrons (as was later universal in the electronic theory of organic reactions), it is most probable that the symbols were adopted by Robert Robinson who, with Watson, worked at British Dyes during World War I123. Arthur Lapworth and Alfred Werner had already used arrows in mechanistic studies, the former perhaps influenced by the inventor of the TNA process, Bernard J. FlUrscheim, who explained benzene substitution patterns in terms of affinity demand , indicated by arrowed bonds124. [Pg.66]


See other pages where Lapworth-Robinson theory is mentioned: [Pg.16]    [Pg.16]    [Pg.4]    [Pg.209]    [Pg.226]    [Pg.4]    [Pg.94]    [Pg.97]    [Pg.17]    [Pg.61]    [Pg.33]    [Pg.204]    [Pg.204]    [Pg.205]    [Pg.208]    [Pg.211]    [Pg.238]    [Pg.273]    [Pg.281]    [Pg.9]    [Pg.221]    [Pg.205]    [Pg.91]    [Pg.91]    [Pg.94]    [Pg.98]    [Pg.99]    [Pg.16]    [Pg.91]    [Pg.113]    [Pg.1112]    [Pg.87]    [Pg.9]    [Pg.9]    [Pg.853]    [Pg.214]    [Pg.210]    [Pg.166]    [Pg.78]    [Pg.944]   


SEARCH



Lapworth

Robinson

© 2024 chempedia.info