Comparison of acids Organic Chemistry

Thread starter alingy1
Start date Jun 7, 2014
Tags

Acids Chemistry Comparison Organic Organic chemistry

AI Thread Summary

The discussion revolves around comparing two acid structures in organic chemistry, specifically questioning why the second structure is the correct answer for a given problem. The first structure is compared to CH3CO2-, while the second structure is noted to be listed in Table 3.1, eliminating the need for further comparison. Participants express uncertainty about determining which acid is stronger based on the provided information, suggesting that the differences are too minimal to make a definitive judgment. The conversation highlights the complexity of acid strength comparison in organic chemistry. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the information provided does not allow for a clear determination of acid strength.

Jun 7, 2014

alingy1

Please look at pictures.
I am wondering for (d). Why is the answer the second one? To which structure in Table 3.1 should I compare it to? I compare the first one to CH3CO2-. What about the second one?

Physics news on Phys.org

Jun 8, 2014

Borek

Mentor

Second one is in the table, no need to look for analogous structure.

That being said, I would not judge which is stronger using the information given. Too close.

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 »