# Westerbaan Huurman notation

```[Cn-H]1..8 [sigma(n,n+1)]1..3,5..7; sigma(4,1);sigma(8,5); [sigma(n,n+4)]1..4```

and

```C1-5,H-C2-6,H-C3-7,H-C4-8,H,1; C5-H-C6-H-C7-C8-H;```

and

```[Cn-n+4,H]1..4; [Cn-H]5..8; sigma(4,1); sigma(8,5);```

They all represent the same carbon cube. (C8H8)

Purpose; because the normal naming of chemistry can’t define all structures they come up with trivial names, which I find very annoying. This notation is intended to be able to describe every structure uniformly. And no, don’t even try to pronounce it.

## 4 thoughts on “Westerbaan Huurman notation”

1. Noud says:

Nice, but not very practful/handy to use. It looks more like perl.

2. You can’t name this molecule using the ‘Systematic Naming’ and therefore it has been assigned a trivial name (Cubaan in dutch), which is a dirty way around it, which makes me have to learn more.

The purpose is to simply have a notation that – like drawing the structure down – can describe every structure.

Oh, and Perl rocks.

3. Noud says:

Chemistry is no programming language, if you cant learn… you shouldnt studty Chemistry. Same like Maths and Physics.

4. Rogier Huurman says:

Why can’t chemical structures be described by a programming language? In Maths and Physics, all formula’s work in symbols. Simply because it’s easier. Then why not in Chemistry?

Well, the systematic naming system was invented to give repeating chains of alkanes a short name. But as more groups are substituted, the name gets more complex and less logical. And if the structure is not carbon based, there is no naming at all. But our notation works for every possible structure, and uses symbols instead of names.

But still, don’t pronounce it.