Chemistry Drawing 1-bromo-6-chlorodispiro [2.1.2^5.1^3] octane

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the correct structure for 1-bromo-6-chlorodispiro [2.1.2^5.1^3] octane, highlighting confusion over nomenclature due to polycyclic IUPAC conventions. Both proposed structures yield the same name when analyzed through an online IUPAC namer, yet they are distinct compounds. To resolve the ambiguity, the source IUPAC documents suggest using a cis/trans convention for differentiation, as E and Z designations apply only to double bonds. Additionally, determining the absolute chiral configuration at the 3 and 5 carbons can help distinguish the compounds. Accurate identification relies on consulting authoritative IUPAC resources for clarity.
Sunwoo Bae
Messages
60
Reaction score
4
Homework Statement
The nomenclature for a compound is given: 1-bromo-6-chlorodispiro [2.1.2^5.1^3] octane
Draw the structure of this compound
Relevant Equations
none
1618413891884.png

I tried drawing the structure, and I do not know which one of the two is the correct compound for the nomenclature.
Which one would be the correct one, and why?

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, kudos to you for getting the right ring structure! Polycyclic IUPAC conventions caused me no end of headaches in school.

Actually answering your question is a bit tricky. If you, for instance, plug both formulas into an online IUPAC namer, you get the same name for both compounds. However, if you actually look at models of the two, you see that they are in fact distinct compounds. This means you have to go to the source IUPAC documents for the answer. I found one of relevance here (possibly paywalled):
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1351/pac199971030531/html
See section SP-9 in the link above. The numbering always goes to the lower locant. So both compounds are in fact 1-bromo-6-chloro. To distinguish them, per the document above, a cis/trans convention is used (apparently E and Z are only used for double bonds). Alternatively, you can determine the absolute chiral configuration (R vs. S) at the 3 and 5 carbons.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc and Sunwoo Bae
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...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
11K
Back
Top