moo (Hive Addict)
10-03-04 13:38
No 534259
      March     

Maybe March's Advanced Organic Chemistry: Reactions, Mechanisms and Structure, 5th Ed.
http://www.wiley-vch.de/publish/en/books/bySubjectNU00/bySubSubjectNU/0-471-58589-0/?sID=d05b

fear fear hate hate
 
 
 
 
    lutesium
(Hive Bee)
10-03-04 14:33
No 534262
      moo thanx for advice it looks comphrensive but     

moo thanx for advice it looks comphrensive but somehow pricey. Whatever I may be able to order it but I want to ask you a question

Is it worth ordering?
Is it a book that you can open every second a question comes your mind? Can it be considered a good source.

And please mind my post on the books I read and I consider I have a good chem knowledge.

Thanks for all help

T
 
 
 
 
    indole_amine
(Hive Bee)
10-03-04 15:55
No 534269
      my preferred ones     

Hi!

The problem in general is that the comprehensible books are often not suited for quickly answering questions - due to their comprehensibility...tongue

Also good are:

"Practical Organic Chemistry", Frederic George Mann, Bernard Charles Saunders; Longman Inc./NY
(rather old, but often more detailed than "Vogel")

"Advanced Organic Synthesis (methods and techniques)", Richard Monson; Academic Press Inc./NY
(the title speaks for itself; very practical, too)

"Lange's Handbook of Chemistry", Prof. John A. Dean; McGraw-Hill Inc./NY
(the best amongst these three; over 1200 pages full of facts, also good for solving single, small problems without having to read hundreds of pages. And the best thing; it is here, somewhere at the hive ...)

And you should frequently check Java's new posts; thanks to him many good books are available as PDFs.


indole_amine
 
 
 
 
    lutesium
(Hive Bee)
10-04-04 10:09
No 534365
      I think you hit the nail on the head ...     

I think you hit the nail on the head indole_amine ! You're smart. The real problem is that increasing comphrensiblity decreases the book's fast and practical question answering ability.
Its like:
"The longer a list gets, the less meaning it has" cool

I also admire vogel but I want to learn more as chemistry is my life but its so complex that it sometimes make the researcher feel like exploding and leave him with a good fever  blush
 

Whatever.. I wait for more comments and keep on readin' ya all! Thanx!wink
 
 
 
 
    moo
(Hive Addict)
10-04-04 15:22
No 534383
      It depends on what one wants.     

It depends on what one wants. March might be a bit heavy reading if one is only interested in theory, even though it is well explained there and referenced too. In that case some else textbook might be a better choice. The references however are one reason why that book is so good. First you have the theoretical part with references, then you have the part detailing various reactions and modifications to them with more references. With a library near you can always go deeper than the book, see some review articles or original work etc. I think the main difference between the 4th ed. and the 5th is that they've mainly updated the part dealing with reactions. So the 4th ed. doesn't have all the newest refs but otherwise it's a good book and might be had second hand much cheaper.

fear fear hate hate
 
 
 
 
    maj
(Stranger)
10-05-04 13:49
No 534530
      Books     

Im sure this is all common knowledge but James W. Zubrick has a very good book that I would advise reading.  It is called the Organic Chemistry Survival Guide, anyone who I have showed this book to has taken a liking.  It is a book that can be enjoyed by the newbee to the Ph.d.  However, you are probably looking for a book with a little more" in-depth" subjects this book may not include
 
 
 
 
    Rhodium
(Chief Bee)
10-05-04 17:39
No 534550
      James W. Zubrick has a very good book that I...     

James W. Zubrick has a very good book that I would advise reading.  It is called the Organic Chemistry Survival Guide

No, James Zubrick's book is called "The Organic Chem Lab Survival Manual".

The Hive - Clandestine Chemists Without Borders
 
 
 
 
    maj
10-05-04 17:47
      oops
(Rated as: redundant)