Show lone pairs as lines and not as two dots ?

Is it possible to show lone pairs not as two dots but as one line instead ?

No, unfortunately not.

Hello, I wonder if this feature is planned or not ?

It would be great.

Hi,

please "lone pairs as one line" only as an option in contrast to "lone pairs as two dots".

Often "two dots" is better, especially in education.

Regards, Hans-Ulrich

Yes, if we implement it, this will be only an option. Unfortunately, we do not have capacity for this now.

HUWagner wrote:

Hi, please "lone pairs as one line" only as an option in contrast to "lone pairs as two dots". Often "two dots" is better, especially in education. Regards, Hans-Ulrich

Agreed.  And please leave the default as dots.  IMHO, lines are both confusing and obsolete.

Hello,

 

is there any progress in implementing the "lone pair line"?

For a publication, I want to illustrate a reaction mechanism for which dots are useless and confusing. If there's nothing planned for the near future, I will have to try my luck with a different application... (Hard enough to find something that is feature-rich and works on Linux, anyway...)

BTW, I do not agree that lines are "confusing and obsolete". Au contraire: lines correspond to either 1-center-two-electron basis functions or 2-center-two-electron basis functions, in which delocalized MOs could be expanded. In contrast, dots correspond to a basis in !spin orbitals!, but only cover 1-center-1-electron basis functions. Confusing enough, if you ask me.

So, especially in education, I think that lines are in many cases benificial, if a link to a quantum mechanical description is to be made. But of course, a situation may ask for either of the descriptions, and I'm looking forward to see them both implemented in this great software!

 

Best,

Peter

 

I understand the problem and it is a reasonable request, but unfortunately, we still do not have enough capacity to implement it in the near future. (If we implement it, it will be an option so the dots will remain the default. )

Best Regards,

Efi

Hi,

in addition to my earlier post here I must agree to Peters argumentation:

Lines represent lone pairs being two "married" electrons having opposite spin
and staying together in one orbital.

Dots represent electrons staying alone in one orbital.

But many journals and textbooks use "paired dots" to represent the
"married" electrons. Marvin is using this method, too.

And there are journals not accepting "paired" dots, so you must have
a chemical application being able to draw lone pairs as lines.

But that's not all. As already posted in two other recent topics,
the representation of charges is much too tiny,
especially the negative charge (see the red arrow at the right pointing
to the tiny red line where the original negative charge sign is not deleted).

Please see the attached example, the two mesomeric resonance structures
of formamide. Here the negative charge is a line and the lone pairs
at oxygen are lines, too ! At the same atom ! The solution is:

The charges must have a little circle around the sign, just as in most
books and journals.

These two optimizations of Marvin should be implemented together.

My suggestion is to install it as shown in the attached image.
In MarvinSketch "Edit - Preferences" leads to a window having sufficient
room to install the important option: [v] Show Lone Pairs as Line.

Please implement it as fast as possible. We need it !

Best regards, Hans-Ulrich


We understand your request and put into our
"To Do" list.

Best Regards,

Efi

We implemented this feature in version 5.11.

Hi Efi,

yes we found it. But having many many student courses "chemistry in computers" we didn't answer here. So today only the attached screen shot and some sentences.

The positions and the display of the lone pairs as lines are really good.

But the charges ? We cannot use it for publications and protocols. Why are the circles different for plus and minus ? And the minus sign is still too tiny. And both signs are not in the middle.

I know the charge circle theme is discussed in another topic. But now I must mention it here.

Sorry, but many chemists are very critical about the design of formulas.

Best regards, Hans-Ulrich

Thank you for the feedback. Considering the charges we are not delighted with this solution either and will modify it.

Best Regards,

Efi