I need to draw the chemical Structural Formula of Bisphenol A

Question

I need to draw the chemical structure of Bisphenol A as shown on this page:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bisphenol_A.svg

I've also found this presentation how to do it:

http://www.suedraum.de/latex/stammtisch/strukturformeln.pdf

Kindly help me with some guidance.

Ah, but wouldn't you rather learn how to do it yourself? Give a man a fish, and all that? — Jake, Nov 21 '13 at 19:55
Reading the »chemfig« manual and taking a look at the mentioned presentation will certainly not be a waste of time. — Thorsten Donig, Nov 21 '13 at 20:09
No Downvote Comment (Be Polite): when will you growup to do yourself in 30 or less seconds unless you take it as a challenge and practice. Only polite statement was "Thank you very much" in Q — texenthusiast, Nov 21 '13 at 21:11
I have edited to tone down your rude language. may you are new here, Please in future, don't assume anything , be polite and make your effort to help us better. Upvoting now. — texenthusiast, Nov 21 '13 at 21:24

score 17 · Accepted Answer · edited Nov 21 '13 at 21:37

17

Here are the fish you wanted, that I caught with texdoc chemfig.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{chemfig}
\begin{document}
\setatomsep{2em}
\setdoublesep{.3em}
\renewcommand*\printatom[1]{\ensuremath{\mathsf{#1}}}
\chemfig[line width=1pt]
{
HO-*6(-=-(-(-[::90]CH_3)(-[::-90]CH_3)-*6(-=-(-OH)=-=))=-=)
}
\end{document}

Now your turn to fetch the cane.

edited Nov 21 '13 at 21:37

Jake

232,450

answered Nov 21 '13 at 20:26

Fran

80,769

7

You're really supporting questions stating »my [...] question, which is a result of lazyness: [...] Since somebody of you will certainly be able to do this in 30 seconds, I thought I would ask you rather than wasting another hour on it.«? – cgnieder Nov 21 '13 at 20:28
@cgnieder The question is impolite, indeed. However the trick with opening the rings may be difficult for a beginner. – Przemysław Scherwentke Nov 21 '13 at 20:36
3

@cgnieder I don't see a problem with Fran's philosophical approach. If you think the OP showed no effort, but that Fran's answer does show quality, then upvote Fran and not the OP. – Steven B. Segletes Nov 21 '13 at 20:37
4

@PrzemysławScherwentke then they can ask a question about how to open a ring with an MWE of what they've tried and where they've failed... – cgnieder Nov 21 '13 at 20:37
3

@StevenB.Segletes what philosophical approach? The OP said “please do this for me because I'm lazy” and Fran did... – cgnieder Nov 21 '13 at 20:40
1

@cgnieder "Philosophical" because Fran's answer can help more than just the OP. An answer serves not just the OP, but the community. Your philosophy is apparently different, and that's fine, too. – Steven B. Segletes Nov 21 '13 at 20:42
@cgneider The "reversal" Gold Badge http://tex.stackexchange.com/help/badges would tend to support Fran's approach, as well. – Steven B. Segletes Nov 21 '13 at 20:44
4

@cgneider, I understand your position. I also was reluctant to answer because of how the question was posed, but called for a fairly simple example, not something like the ivermectin. Sometimes a small example is rather more useful than a great handbook at the start, even just to lose the fear of the bull. Moreover, the important thing is that the answer may also help to others. – Fran Nov 21 '13 at 21:31
This could/should be a meta site discussion. There's a "policy on how to draw this", but this is different topic, which really should have it's own (CW?) discussion on meta. @StevenBSegletes: the Reversal badge is a bit outdated, I guess: we rarely (almost never) vote down question below -1, there's only 5 of them at -5 or lower (all answered somehow, or closed). :) The fact that texenthusiast rephrased the question instead of downvoting supports my statement. – masu Nov 21 '13 at 21:55
@masu There is already a meta question related this topic: (How much) should we wait for a MWE from the OP?. The extra component in this question was its brashness with respect to not having tried anything. (See the edit history for details.) – Alan Munn Nov 21 '13 at 22:58
@Fran the funny thing is, though: with this simple molecule you get a higher voted answer than most of my chemfig answers :) (Still waiting for the badge... IIRC the one where I created a \fork arrow got only 1 vote for example...). BTW: it's an »ie« in my user name so I wasn't pinged by your comment ;) – cgnieder Nov 21 '13 at 23:49
1

@cgnieder (sorry for the mistake). Yes, it is a bit surreal. But who does not have the feeling here that some of his best responses received few votes, even none, while the less expected are popular? Who expected that the best question is how to explain the meaning of LateX to my grandma?. Things are as they are. (Funny conclusion: ergo egreg's reputation is not as good as it seems, ha ha) – Fran Nov 22 '13 at 04:36
I would like to apologize for the uproar my 'question' caused. I know that it's certainly not the idea of stackexchange to let others do your work for you. I was desperately trying to code this structural formula before the deadline for handing in my work where I needed it. In the future, I will for sure spend more time on solving such problems by myself. On the other hand, I think understanding and reproducing Fran's answer helped me to comprehend the concept of chemfig. To cut a long story short, you're always wiser in the aftermath... – Jurg Nov 22 '13 at 12:30
2

@Jurg Even in desperation and in last min rush,don't push your Q with harsh tone and rude language. BTW LaTeX is not for last min guys :). – texenthusiast Nov 22 '13 at 14:11
@texenthusiast I am sorry if it came across as rude, this was by no means my intention. I will take your advice by heart ;) – Jurg Nov 22 '13 at 14:58

I need to draw the chemical Structural Formula of Bisphenol A

1 Answers1