Kan iemand me hier wat wijzer uit maken, uit de naamgeving N-ethyl-norketamine/N-ethylketamine/ethylketamine, is dit allemaal hetzelfde , alleen dat N-ethyl-norketamine technisch gezien de meest correcte benaming is of is er een essentieel verschil tussen N-ethylketamine en N-ethyl-norketamine.......vond na wat zoekwerk op bluelight.org ook mensen met uitleg en die was ook tegenstrijdig,
is er iemand die me hier de juiste uitleg over kan geven? Einstein of iemand?
Dit zijn enkele quotes letterlijk overgenomen uit bluelight.org:
Quote: Originally Posted by Hammilton
I don't care if they're calling it pineapple. They are selling N-ethyl-norketamine. There's no debate. Or rather, there should be no debate. if this were a different subforum this nonsense wouldn't have continued nearly so long. The "nor" prefix properly refers to the removal of an alkyl group from a nitrogen. I'm not entirely sure if this can refer to amides or only amines. I believe it can properly refer to either but someone else would have to comment on that. Norketamine is ketamine without the N-methyl group. It is a primary amine. N-ethyl-norketamine is absolutely, unequivocally the compound that has been described here. Insisting on it being N-ethyl-ketamine is like saying that heroin is diacetylcodeine. I was expecting my comment to be met with "we know it's N-ethyl-norketamine, but we prefer to call it n-ethylketamine because it's easier" or something similar, not actual opposition to the truth of the matter. Calling this N-ethyl-ketamine (which is isn't) only confuses what we should be calling the REAL n-ethylketamine which is a real compound and may be active enough to be used.
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/1714/kneknenk.jpg Eventually people need to start getting away from abbreviating everything and actually name compounds. Generally whole classes of compounds are given a single ending (the 'pams, the 'zolams, the 'orphans and 'odones, the 'barbitals, the 'caines and 'qualones etc etc) and new compounds are just given new starts to that ending. Unfortunately ending in amine is overly common. Perhaps something based on phenylcyclidine. Ethylcyclodone perhaps. I don't know, I don't really care, but a systematized naming system instead of what has become and endless run of acronyms. This worked good for the drones, actually, with the obvious exception of methedrone, which was a terrible, moronic decision. This isn't the right place for THAT conversation, but it's unfortunately relevant.Thank you for taking the time and effort to explain this complex issue so clearly and lucidly -- I'm sure that we all appreciate it (deep-down)!
Quote: Originally Posted by ungelesene_bettlek
everything can be exaggerated, including precision. why not insist on calling it (RS)-2-(2-Chlorophenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone when we're already at it? everybody knows what is meant, you are just confusing people by insisting on your point that much.
NO! Hammilton is certainly right, his post is necessary and I am thankful that he invested the energy to write it in such detail. I totally see that nomenclature shouldn't be exaggerated (i.e. IUPAC names instead of more convenient trivial names) but we absolutely can not accept giving substances names that obviously do not correspond to their correct structure! It's a pity that we need to actually discuss this (several times).
Originally Posted by FnX View Post
So we can agree that the substance in question is indeed an analog of the keot ketamine itself?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no - and this is a further reason that I am against insisting on the cumbersome correct nomenclature, it is misleading to this wrong conclusion.
in ethylketamine, the n-methyl group of regular ketamine has been replaced with an n-ethyl group, whereas norketamine has no n-substitution at all. so the n-alkyl substitution has been lengthened in the step from ketamine to ethylketamine, so in a certain sense ethylketamine is further away from norketamine than ketamine itself. when one orders according to the length of the side chain, one gets the following series:
0 norketamine
1 ketamine
2 ethylketamine
perhaps it makes this point even clearer when one remembers that ketamine could be also referred to as n-methyl-norketamine (as someone already mentioned in this thread).
btw, here is a picture of norketamine for your comparison:
http://www.anesthesiawiki.net/metroh...orketamine.jpg17-09-2012, 05:00
Hammilton
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
perhaps it makes this point even clearer when one remembers that ketamine could be also referred to as n-methyl-norketamine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That just takes it to moronic lengths and doesn't prove anything aside from the fact that (A-B)+B = A. Fallacious reasoning.
Such (moronic) naming refers to one compound, and one compound only. That's why no one (with intelligence) would refer to it in such a way. N-E-NorKet MUST be referred to as such because otherwise you create potentially dangerous ambiguity.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no - and this is a further reason that I am against insisting on the cumbersome correct nomenclature, it is misleading to this wrong conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow... this is just getting retarded. It's a fucking analogue of both of them. And what relevance does this have to the naming of the compound? You could call it Ethetamine or anything and have a perfectly usable non-ambiguous trivial name. Either call it what is or come up with something new. Don't advocate for people's lives at risk because your ability to understand a truly simple naming process is impaired.
Honestly, this is like asking for the RC industry to get even more murky.
I can't believe that someone would admit to find the use of "nor" complicated, [proof that I'm capable of self censoring]
The whole reason for using the correct nomenclature is to account for the fact that the naming you're advocating refers to an entirely different compound. Here are just a few reasons not to use the moronic nomenclature you're advocating:
1. IT REFERS TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DRUG. If your naming system results in people being unable to tell the difference between two different drugs it is DANGEROUS.
2. WHAT DO WE NOW REFER TO THE REAL N-ETHYL-KETAMINE? Is that NEK-2? N-Ethyl-Ketamine version 2.0?
3. USING THIS MORONIC SYSTEM, AN RC VENDOR MAY PLACE AN ORDER FOR N-ETHYL-KETAMINE and actually receive N-Ethyl-Ketamine. You know, NEK-2 or N-Ethyl-Ketamine ver 2.0. I know, your system is supposed to be simpler right. Perhaps NEK-2 is actually toxic. Now people are dying. Perhaps it turns out to be much weaker (as it probably is) someone switches from high doses of that to high doses of NEK ver 1.0 without realizing it (because without pictures and analysis there's no way to actually tell) and they're talking to God face to face, in the undesired way.
The real, accepted nomenclature does not cause people to believe that it's an analogue of a metabolite or the more common drug. That's just people not understanding chemistry. That same misunderstanding occurs within all sorts of compounds for which there are no naming disputes (this isn't a dispute really- there's only one right answer. there's also a dumb answer, that's undeniable, but there's only one right one).
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in ethylketamine, the n-methyl group of regular ketamine has been replaced with an n-ethyl group, whereas norketamine has no n-substitution at all. so the n-alkyl substitution has been lengthened in the step from ketamine to ethylketamine, so in a certain sense ethylketamine is further away from norketamine than ketamine itself. when one orders according to the length of the side chain, one gets the following series:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah... so what? it's almost certainly closer in terms of pharmacology as well. That's irrelevant in naming the compound. Perhaps we should rename Dextromethorphan because people might get confused and think it's an opiate?
Dit was dan weer wat iemand anders uitlegde:
N-ethylnorketamine, N-ethylketamine, ethylketamine and NEK are all the same thing. Starting with the most technically correct and finishing with the least. N-ethylnorketamine is the most correct because technically N-ethylketamine indicates that you have normal (methyl) ketamine and an ethyl group on the nitrogen. norketamine is the name for ketamine without that methyl. N-ethylnorketamine is the name for ketamine with an ethyl group replacing the methyl group.