You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi Peter,
I always recommend strongly against searching by formula because formulas are NOT unique. If you really want to find a chemical by formula, you can do so as follows:
You will have to deal with potentially having a different chemical returned in the future though, although I'm not aware of another chemical with that formula in this case.
For example, C12H26 has 347 compounds in thermo.
Sincerely,
Caleb
I completely understand the issues for higher alkanes etc. which have many isomers, and indeed there's no reasonable way of defining a cut-off.
I think it's worth considering whether the current priority of "formula after smiles" is a good one in general, especially given that one can already search by smiles explicitly using the smiles= prefix.
In my particular case (catalysis), nobody is going to call CO by the full name anywhere in their data tables. chemicals does a great job at disambiguating stuff like C3H6, propylene, propene to ensure it's the same molecule (smiles=CCC); however I'd argue that CO and methanol / MeOH should never both evaluate to smiles=CO as it's super unexpected (although technically correct).
What is the search string
Which chemical in the database do you believe should be found?
Perhaps a toggle to prefer searching by formulas over smiles first should be added?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: