How to report a triplet of septets in NMR tabulation?How to construct NMR spectra from chemical shift tensors?1H NMR proton coupling1H NMR Broad peaks1H (proton) NMR spectra for alkanesIs there a consensus how to report coupling patterns greater than quartets?Interpretation of an H NMRUnusual triplet in 13C-NMRFind NMR equivalent atomsNMR Spectra OdditiesNMR spectrum of 3-hexylthiophene: why is the methyl group not a triplet?
how to find the equation of a circle given points of the circle
Rivers without rain
Will tsunami waves travel forever if there was no land?
With a Canadian student visa, can I spend a night at Vancouver before continuing to Toronto?
Do I have to worry about players making “bad” choices on level up?
What is the difference between `command a[bc]d` and `command `ab,cd`
How to stop co-workers from teasing me because I know Russian?
Why does nature favour the Laplacian?
What are the potential pitfalls when using metals as a currency?
Critique of timeline aesthetic
The Defining Moment
Why other Westeros houses don't use wildfire?
Why is it that the natural deduction method can't test for invalidity?
Fizzy, soft, pop and still drinks
Is there any limitation with Arduino Nano serial communication distance?
Reducing vertical space in stackrel
What makes accurate emulation of old systems a difficult task?
Is there a way to get a compiler for the original B programming language?
Was there a Viking Exchange as well as a Columbian one?
US visa is under administrative processing, I need the passport back ASAP
Why do games have consumables?
Exchange,swap or switch
Is there really no use for MD5 anymore?
How much cash can I safely carry into the USA and avoid civil forfeiture?
How to report a triplet of septets in NMR tabulation?
How to construct NMR spectra from chemical shift tensors?1H NMR proton coupling1H NMR Broad peaks1H (proton) NMR spectra for alkanesIs there a consensus how to report coupling patterns greater than quartets?Interpretation of an H NMRUnusual triplet in 13C-NMRFind NMR equivalent atomsNMR Spectra OdditiesNMR spectrum of 3-hexylthiophene: why is the methyl group not a triplet?
$begingroup$
Does anyone know the proper format to report an iso-butyl group, eg. $ceR-CH2-CcolorredH(CH3)2$, in $ce^1H$ NMR tabulation? The proton in red should be a triplet of septets, so I've written:
δ 2.72 (d, J = 5.5 Hz, 2H), 1.80 (tsep, J = 5.5, 5.3 Hz, 1H), 1.02 (d, J = 5.3 Hz, 6 H).
Is the use of "tsep" acceptable here?
organic-chemistry nmr-spectroscopy notation
edited Apr 7 at 15:57
orthocresol♦
40.6k7117250
asked Apr 7 at 15:27
WahWah
283
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Does anyone know the proper format to report an iso-butyl group, eg. $ceR-CH2-CcolorredH(CH3)2$, in $ce^1H$ NMR tabulation? The proton in red should be a triplet of septets, so I've written:
δ 2.72 (d, J = 5.5 Hz, 2H), 1.80 (tsep, J = 5.5, 5.3 Hz, 1H), 1.02 (d, J = 5.3 Hz, 6 H).
Is the use of "tsep" acceptable here?
organic-chemistry nmr-spectroscopy notation
edited Apr 7 at 15:57
orthocresol♦
40.6k7117250
asked Apr 7 at 15:27
WahWah
283
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Does anyone know the proper format to report an iso-butyl group, eg. $ceR-CH2-CcolorredH(CH3)2$, in $ce^1H$ NMR tabulation? The proton in red should be a triplet of septets, so I've written:
δ 2.72 (d, J = 5.5 Hz, 2H), 1.80 (tsep, J = 5.5, 5.3 Hz, 1H), 1.02 (d, J = 5.3 Hz, 6 H).
Is the use of "tsep" acceptable here?
organic-chemistry nmr-spectroscopy notation
edited Apr 7 at 15:57
orthocresol♦
40.6k7117250
asked Apr 7 at 15:27
WahWah
283
$endgroup$
Does anyone know the proper format to report an iso-butyl group, eg. $ceR-CH2-CcolorredH(CH3)2$, in $ce^1H$ NMR tabulation? The proton in red should be a triplet of septets, so I've written:
δ 2.72 (d, J = 5.5 Hz, 2H), 1.80 (tsep, J = 5.5, 5.3 Hz, 1H), 1.02 (d, J = 5.3 Hz, 6 H).
Is the use of "tsep" acceptable here?
organic-chemistry nmr-spectroscopy notation
organic-chemistry nmr-spectroscopy notation
edited Apr 7 at 15:57
orthocresol♦
40.6k7117250
asked Apr 7 at 15:27
WahWah
283
edited Apr 7 at 15:57
orthocresol♦
40.6k7117250
asked Apr 7 at 15:27
WahWah
283
edited Apr 7 at 15:57
orthocresol♦
40.6k7117250
edited Apr 7 at 15:57
orthocresol♦
40.6k7117250
edited Apr 7 at 15:57
orthocresol♦
40.6k7117250
40.6k7117250
asked Apr 7 at 15:27
WahWah
283
asked Apr 7 at 15:27
WahWah
283
asked Apr 7 at 15:27
WahWah
283
283
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I personally use a space, so "t sep" as long as both "t" and "sep" are defined. I think it's slightly clearer than "tsep", but I don't think there's any official adjudication on what's a good or bad acronym.
Also, of some interest to me is how you manage to distinguish 5.5 and 5.3 Hz. If it looks quite like an nonet, I would probably prefer reporting it as an apparent nonet, although different people may have different opinions... I know some groups will have "in-house" rules / guidelines for reporting NMR spectra, so it might be a good idea to check with your supervisor on this front.
answered Apr 7 at 15:54
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.6k7117250
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I used to call it heptet, but nowadays, those have changed. For example, now they call all pentets as quintets. :-) About 5.5 vs 5.3, I think OP has been using $pu400 MHz$ or bigger machine so they can measure up to $pu0.01 Hz$.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
Apr 7 at 18:47
1
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, it's not realistically possible to measure couplings to an accuracy of 0.01 Hz. If you take a 400 MHz machine, a spectral width of 20 ppm (= 8000 Hz), and 64k data points during acquisition (32k real + 32k complex), then the resolution is ~0.25 Hz. Even this is not enough to accurately distinguish a coupling of 5.5 and 5.3 Hz, you can see this for yourself at this website, or using e.g. MestReNova - it is indistinguishable from a perfect nonet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 18:55
$begingroup$
You would also need to take into consideration linewidth contributions from e.g. field inhomogeneity and relaxation. It's very, very difficult to distinguish two couplings differing by 0.2 Hz.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 18:58
$begingroup$
Sure, but computer gives your peak picking to 4 decimal places, so I think OP might think it's okay to report that way without concerning the uncertainty. Nonetheless, I wouldn't report that way in a journal article.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
Apr 7 at 19:02
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, sorry, I think I might have misunderstood you, actually; I think it's fair to say that you can measure 5.5 and 5.3 for two different multiplets, i.e. the CH2 and the (CH3)2 signals, although the uncertainty is definitely still there. I was more concerned about the CH peak, where the shape of that multiplet (on its own) won't allow you to extract two different couplings of 0.2 Hz difference from that one multiplet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 19:05
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "431"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f112314%2fhow-to-report-a-triplet-of-septets-in-nmr-tabulation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I personally use a space, so "t sep" as long as both "t" and "sep" are defined. I think it's slightly clearer than "tsep", but I don't think there's any official adjudication on what's a good or bad acronym.
Also, of some interest to me is how you manage to distinguish 5.5 and 5.3 Hz. If it looks quite like an nonet, I would probably prefer reporting it as an apparent nonet, although different people may have different opinions... I know some groups will have "in-house" rules / guidelines for reporting NMR spectra, so it might be a good idea to check with your supervisor on this front.
answered Apr 7 at 15:54
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.6k7117250
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I used to call it heptet, but nowadays, those have changed. For example, now they call all pentets as quintets. :-) About 5.5 vs 5.3, I think OP has been using $pu400 MHz$ or bigger machine so they can measure up to $pu0.01 Hz$.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
Apr 7 at 18:47
1
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, it's not realistically possible to measure couplings to an accuracy of 0.01 Hz. If you take a 400 MHz machine, a spectral width of 20 ppm (= 8000 Hz), and 64k data points during acquisition (32k real + 32k complex), then the resolution is ~0.25 Hz. Even this is not enough to accurately distinguish a coupling of 5.5 and 5.3 Hz, you can see this for yourself at this website, or using e.g. MestReNova - it is indistinguishable from a perfect nonet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 18:55
$begingroup$
You would also need to take into consideration linewidth contributions from e.g. field inhomogeneity and relaxation. It's very, very difficult to distinguish two couplings differing by 0.2 Hz.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 18:58
$begingroup$
Sure, but computer gives your peak picking to 4 decimal places, so I think OP might think it's okay to report that way without concerning the uncertainty. Nonetheless, I wouldn't report that way in a journal article.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
Apr 7 at 19:02
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, sorry, I think I might have misunderstood you, actually; I think it's fair to say that you can measure 5.5 and 5.3 for two different multiplets, i.e. the CH2 and the (CH3)2 signals, although the uncertainty is definitely still there. I was more concerned about the CH peak, where the shape of that multiplet (on its own) won't allow you to extract two different couplings of 0.2 Hz difference from that one multiplet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 19:05
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I personally use a space, so "t sep" as long as both "t" and "sep" are defined. I think it's slightly clearer than "tsep", but I don't think there's any official adjudication on what's a good or bad acronym.
Also, of some interest to me is how you manage to distinguish 5.5 and 5.3 Hz. If it looks quite like an nonet, I would probably prefer reporting it as an apparent nonet, although different people may have different opinions... I know some groups will have "in-house" rules / guidelines for reporting NMR spectra, so it might be a good idea to check with your supervisor on this front.
answered Apr 7 at 15:54
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.6k7117250
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I used to call it heptet, but nowadays, those have changed. For example, now they call all pentets as quintets. :-) About 5.5 vs 5.3, I think OP has been using $pu400 MHz$ or bigger machine so they can measure up to $pu0.01 Hz$.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
Apr 7 at 18:47
1
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, it's not realistically possible to measure couplings to an accuracy of 0.01 Hz. If you take a 400 MHz machine, a spectral width of 20 ppm (= 8000 Hz), and 64k data points during acquisition (32k real + 32k complex), then the resolution is ~0.25 Hz. Even this is not enough to accurately distinguish a coupling of 5.5 and 5.3 Hz, you can see this for yourself at this website, or using e.g. MestReNova - it is indistinguishable from a perfect nonet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 18:55
$begingroup$
You would also need to take into consideration linewidth contributions from e.g. field inhomogeneity and relaxation. It's very, very difficult to distinguish two couplings differing by 0.2 Hz.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 18:58
$begingroup$
Sure, but computer gives your peak picking to 4 decimal places, so I think OP might think it's okay to report that way without concerning the uncertainty. Nonetheless, I wouldn't report that way in a journal article.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
Apr 7 at 19:02
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, sorry, I think I might have misunderstood you, actually; I think it's fair to say that you can measure 5.5 and 5.3 for two different multiplets, i.e. the CH2 and the (CH3)2 signals, although the uncertainty is definitely still there. I was more concerned about the CH peak, where the shape of that multiplet (on its own) won't allow you to extract two different couplings of 0.2 Hz difference from that one multiplet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 19:05
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I personally use a space, so "t sep" as long as both "t" and "sep" are defined. I think it's slightly clearer than "tsep", but I don't think there's any official adjudication on what's a good or bad acronym.
Also, of some interest to me is how you manage to distinguish 5.5 and 5.3 Hz. If it looks quite like an nonet, I would probably prefer reporting it as an apparent nonet, although different people may have different opinions... I know some groups will have "in-house" rules / guidelines for reporting NMR spectra, so it might be a good idea to check with your supervisor on this front.
answered Apr 7 at 15:54
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.6k7117250
$endgroup$
I personally use a space, so "t sep" as long as both "t" and "sep" are defined. I think it's slightly clearer than "tsep", but I don't think there's any official adjudication on what's a good or bad acronym.
Also, of some interest to me is how you manage to distinguish 5.5 and 5.3 Hz. If it looks quite like an nonet, I would probably prefer reporting it as an apparent nonet, although different people may have different opinions... I know some groups will have "in-house" rules / guidelines for reporting NMR spectra, so it might be a good idea to check with your supervisor on this front.
answered Apr 7 at 15:54
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.6k7117250
answered Apr 7 at 15:54
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.6k7117250
answered Apr 7 at 15:54
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.6k7117250
answered Apr 7 at 15:54
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.6k7117250
40.6k7117250
$begingroup$
I used to call it heptet, but nowadays, those have changed. For example, now they call all pentets as quintets. :-) About 5.5 vs 5.3, I think OP has been using $pu400 MHz$ or bigger machine so they can measure up to $pu0.01 Hz$.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
Apr 7 at 18:47
1
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, it's not realistically possible to measure couplings to an accuracy of 0.01 Hz. If you take a 400 MHz machine, a spectral width of 20 ppm (= 8000 Hz), and 64k data points during acquisition (32k real + 32k complex), then the resolution is ~0.25 Hz. Even this is not enough to accurately distinguish a coupling of 5.5 and 5.3 Hz, you can see this for yourself at this website, or using e.g. MestReNova - it is indistinguishable from a perfect nonet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 18:55
$begingroup$
You would also need to take into consideration linewidth contributions from e.g. field inhomogeneity and relaxation. It's very, very difficult to distinguish two couplings differing by 0.2 Hz.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 18:58
$begingroup$
Sure, but computer gives your peak picking to 4 decimal places, so I think OP might think it's okay to report that way without concerning the uncertainty. Nonetheless, I wouldn't report that way in a journal article.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
Apr 7 at 19:02
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, sorry, I think I might have misunderstood you, actually; I think it's fair to say that you can measure 5.5 and 5.3 for two different multiplets, i.e. the CH2 and the (CH3)2 signals, although the uncertainty is definitely still there. I was more concerned about the CH peak, where the shape of that multiplet (on its own) won't allow you to extract two different couplings of 0.2 Hz difference from that one multiplet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 19:05
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I used to call it heptet, but nowadays, those have changed. For example, now they call all pentets as quintets. :-) About 5.5 vs 5.3, I think OP has been using $pu400 MHz$ or bigger machine so they can measure up to $pu0.01 Hz$.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
Apr 7 at 18:47
1
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, it's not realistically possible to measure couplings to an accuracy of 0.01 Hz. If you take a 400 MHz machine, a spectral width of 20 ppm (= 8000 Hz), and 64k data points during acquisition (32k real + 32k complex), then the resolution is ~0.25 Hz. Even this is not enough to accurately distinguish a coupling of 5.5 and 5.3 Hz, you can see this for yourself at this website, or using e.g. MestReNova - it is indistinguishable from a perfect nonet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 18:55
$begingroup$
You would also need to take into consideration linewidth contributions from e.g. field inhomogeneity and relaxation. It's very, very difficult to distinguish two couplings differing by 0.2 Hz.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 18:58
$begingroup$
Sure, but computer gives your peak picking to 4 decimal places, so I think OP might think it's okay to report that way without concerning the uncertainty. Nonetheless, I wouldn't report that way in a journal article.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
Apr 7 at 19:02
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, sorry, I think I might have misunderstood you, actually; I think it's fair to say that you can measure 5.5 and 5.3 for two different multiplets, i.e. the CH2 and the (CH3)2 signals, although the uncertainty is definitely still there. I was more concerned about the CH peak, where the shape of that multiplet (on its own) won't allow you to extract two different couplings of 0.2 Hz difference from that one multiplet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 19:05
$begingroup$
I used to call it heptet, but nowadays, those have changed. For example, now they call all pentets as quintets. :-) About 5.5 vs 5.3, I think OP has been using $pu400 MHz$ or bigger machine so they can measure up to $pu0.01 Hz$.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
Apr 7 at 18:47
$begingroup$
I used to call it heptet, but nowadays, those have changed. For example, now they call all pentets as quintets. :-) About 5.5 vs 5.3, I think OP has been using $pu400 MHz$ or bigger machine so they can measure up to $pu0.01 Hz$.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
Apr 7 at 18:47
1
1
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, it's not realistically possible to measure couplings to an accuracy of 0.01 Hz. If you take a 400 MHz machine, a spectral width of 20 ppm (= 8000 Hz), and 64k data points during acquisition (32k real + 32k complex), then the resolution is ~0.25 Hz. Even this is not enough to accurately distinguish a coupling of 5.5 and 5.3 Hz, you can see this for yourself at this website, or using e.g. MestReNova - it is indistinguishable from a perfect nonet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 18:55
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, it's not realistically possible to measure couplings to an accuracy of 0.01 Hz. If you take a 400 MHz machine, a spectral width of 20 ppm (= 8000 Hz), and 64k data points during acquisition (32k real + 32k complex), then the resolution is ~0.25 Hz. Even this is not enough to accurately distinguish a coupling of 5.5 and 5.3 Hz, you can see this for yourself at this website, or using e.g. MestReNova - it is indistinguishable from a perfect nonet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 18:55
$begingroup$
You would also need to take into consideration linewidth contributions from e.g. field inhomogeneity and relaxation. It's very, very difficult to distinguish two couplings differing by 0.2 Hz.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 18:58
$begingroup$
You would also need to take into consideration linewidth contributions from e.g. field inhomogeneity and relaxation. It's very, very difficult to distinguish two couplings differing by 0.2 Hz.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 18:58
$begingroup$
Sure, but computer gives your peak picking to 4 decimal places, so I think OP might think it's okay to report that way without concerning the uncertainty. Nonetheless, I wouldn't report that way in a journal article.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
Apr 7 at 19:02
$begingroup$
Sure, but computer gives your peak picking to 4 decimal places, so I think OP might think it's okay to report that way without concerning the uncertainty. Nonetheless, I wouldn't report that way in a journal article.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
Apr 7 at 19:02
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, sorry, I think I might have misunderstood you, actually; I think it's fair to say that you can measure 5.5 and 5.3 for two different multiplets, i.e. the CH2 and the (CH3)2 signals, although the uncertainty is definitely still there. I was more concerned about the CH peak, where the shape of that multiplet (on its own) won't allow you to extract two different couplings of 0.2 Hz difference from that one multiplet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 19:05
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, sorry, I think I might have misunderstood you, actually; I think it's fair to say that you can measure 5.5 and 5.3 for two different multiplets, i.e. the CH2 and the (CH3)2 signals, although the uncertainty is definitely still there. I was more concerned about the CH peak, where the shape of that multiplet (on its own) won't allow you to extract two different couplings of 0.2 Hz difference from that one multiplet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Apr 7 at 19:05
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Chemistry Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f112314%2fhow-to-report-a-triplet-of-septets-in-nmr-tabulation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
