Skip to main content

lone pair rendering

JCP now has minimal lone pair display. I would prefer the layout to be at the corners of a square, rather than on the edges. Videlicet, they are currently only at N, W, S, E; I think that NW, SW, SW, and NE would be better.

Strangely lone pairs don't seem to appear in CML files when written out, but Egon says he will look at this. Perhaps I should file a bug report...
Oh, and radicals are implemented too, but I don't have a picture of that (see right). They are in different generators, but I guess a single 'DotGenerator' could do both :)

Comments

Kirill said…
According to this IUPAC Recommendations (section GR-5.2 Lone pairs):
Isolated lone pairs should be positioned, like unpaired electrons, close to the atom with which they are associated. They should normally be positioned exactly above, below, to the left, or to the right of the atom label, with the two dots of the lone pair parallel to the closest side (horizontally if above or below the label, vertically if to the left or the right). Positioning of lone pairs at other angles should be strongly avoided unless it is impossible to do otherwise.
To illustrate the latter point, there is an example of ClF3 where two lone pairs are shown to NE and SE of Cl atom.
Kirill said…
Do they (lone pairs) actually have to be present in CML file? I think this is a matter of representation / style. The lone pair in ammonia is there irrespectively of whether we want to see it or not.
gilleain said…
wow - I didn't know there were so many ways to get a chemical diagram wrong! :)

That looks like a very useful document, thanks.

I had assumed that the lone pair should be drawn where a bond would be. So an COH would have a trigonal planar structure...

This is true that lone pairs are implicit. I was distracted by the fact that the CDK requires there to be an explicit lone pair object attached to an atom.

I guess the situation is a lot like hydrogens, actually.
Gillean, looks great!

Kirill, the LPs are there always, sure. However, diagrams are somewhat special, where you might want to put focus on some lone pairs, not all. For example, those involved in a reaction. This is why one would be interested in serializing this to CML.

Regarding the oxygen lone pairs... it actually has two lone pairs, and the diagram chooses to show only one...
Kirill said…
Sure, it would be great to show where lone pair is, especially if that adds clarity to the sketch. Another IUPAC Recommendations (you see, I am promoting my own work here), p. 1942, top, show two examples of trigonal pyramidal confuguration due to lone pair. If you do not draw this lone pair, you may not even realise that sulfur and phosphorus are chiral atoms there.

Popular posts from this blog

Generating Dungeons With BSP Trees or Sliceable Rectangles

So, I admit that the original reason for looking at sliceable rectangles was because of this gaming stackoverflow question about generating dungeon maps. The approach described there uses something called a binary split partition tree (BSP Tree) that's usually used in the context of 3D - notably in the rendering engine of the game Doom. Here is a BSP tree, as an example:



In the image, we have a sliced rectangle on the left, with the final rectangles labelled with letters (A-E) and the slices with numbers (1-4). The corresponding tree is on the right, with the slices as internal nodes labelled with 'h' for horizontal and 'v' for vertical. Naturally, only the leaves correspond to rectangles, and each internal node has two children - it's a binary tree.

So what is the connection between such trees and the sliceable dual graphs? Well, the rectangles are related in exactly the expected way:


Here, the same BSP tree is on the left (without some labels), and the slicea…

Common Vertex Matrices of Graphs

There is an interesting set of papers out this year by Milan Randic et al (sorry about the accents - blogger seems to have a problem with accented 'c'...). I've looked at his work before here.

[1] Common vertex matrix: A novel characterization of molecular graphs by counting
[2] On the centrality of vertices of molecular graphs

and one still in publication to do with fullerenes. The central idea here (ho ho) is a graph descriptor a bit like path lengths called 'centrality'. Briefly, it is the count of neighbourhood intersections between pairs of vertices. Roughly this is illustrated here:


For the selected pair of vertices, the common vertices are those at the same distance from each - one at a distance of two and one at a distance of three. The matrix element for this pair will be the sum - 2 - and this is repeated for all pairs in the graph. Naturally, this is symmetric:


At the right of the matrix is the row sum (∑) which can be ordered to provide a graph invarian…

Signatures with user-defined edge colors

A bug in the CDK implementation of my signature library turned out to be due to the fact that the bond colors were hard coded to just recognise the labels {"-", "=", "#" }. The relevant code section even had an XXX above it!

Poor show, but it's finally fixed now. So that means I can handle user-defined edge colors/labels - consider the complete graph (K5) below:

So the red/blue colors here are simply those of a chessboard imposed on top of the adjacency matrix - shown here on the right. You might expect there to be at least two vertex signature classes here : {0, 2, 4} and {1, 3} where the first class has vertices with two blue and two red edges, and the second has three blue and two red.

Indeed, here's what happens for K4 to K7:

Clearly even-numbered complete graphs have just one vertex class, while odd-numbered ones have two (at least?). There is a similar situation for complete bipartite graphs:

Although I haven't explored any more of these…