Achiral and Chiral Compounds - B and D

  • Thread starter Thread starter assaftolko
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Chiral
AI Thread Summary
Compounds B and D lack chiral centers, but their chirality is determined by their symmetry. Compound B has a plane of symmetry, making it achiral, while compound D lacks this symmetry and is therefore chiral. The discussion emphasizes that the presence of chiral centers alone does not definitively classify a compound as achiral. Instead, the superimposability of mirror images is a more reliable criterion for determining chirality. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurate classification of compounds in stereochemistry.
assaftolko
Messages
171
Reaction score
0
Compounds B and D both have no chiralaty centers - but it seems to me that B has a plane of symmetry so it's achiral, and D has no plane of symmetry so it's chiral. I always thought though, that if a compound has no chiral centers then you can say with conffidence it's achiral. Is my analysis for B and D correct? And can you say anything with certeinty about a compound with no chiralaty centers?
 

Attachments

  • Clipboard01.jpg
    Clipboard01.jpg
    24.9 KB · Views: 499
Physics news on Phys.org
It's better to think in terms of superimposability of mirror images in these cases.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
View full post »

Similar threads

Chemistry Why Do Sulfurous Compounds Show Different Peaks in X-ray Absorption Spectra?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Alkylation of Imines: achiral to chiral compounds
Replies
2
Views
3K
Chemistry What is the basicity trend of organic compounds?
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Chiral symmetries in E[SUP]^n[/SUP]
Replies
1
Views
2K
Chirality Questions - Need Answers Checked
Replies
1
Views
5K
Chemistry How do we know ##BF_3## has Lewis structure but ##Al_2S_3## does not?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Which compounds are isoelectronic with CN-?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Why and how chiral molecules rotate plane of polarisation?
Replies
4
Views
4K
Neuman stability and chiral question
Replies
6
Views
2K
Questions about the common-ion effect
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top