Eliminating Alcohols: Why Do (A) and (B) Give Different Products?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the differing products formed from reactions (A) and (B) involving alcohol elimination. Reaction (A) yields both 1-pentene and 2-pentene, including its E-Z diastereomers, resulting in three possible products. In contrast, reaction (B) produces only the E and Z diastereomers of 2-pentene, leading to two possible products. The confusion arises from a discrepancy in expected product designations, with the original source indicating (A) leads to a different stereochemical outcome than anticipated. The participants express skepticism about the reliability of the source material, questioning the accuracy of the provided information.
baldbrain
Messages
236
Reaction score
21
Homework Statement
I just have a problem with (A) & (B)
IMG_20180719_173721.JPG

The attempt at a solution
Analysing all possible products;
(A) can give 1-pentene (minor) + 2-pentene (major). But you also have the E-Z diastereomers of 2-pentene. So that's total 3 possible products.
(B) will give only the diastereomers E & Z 2-pentene. So 2 possible products
Hence, (A)→(s) & (B)→(r)
But they've given (A)→(r) & (B)→(s)
How can it be?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20180719_173721.JPG
    IMG_20180719_173721.JPG
    30 KB · Views: 1,073
Physics news on Phys.org
Books are not infallible.
 
Are you sure? No hitch? We aren't missing anything?
 
Nope. S, R, Q, P.
 
  • Like
Likes baldbrain
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...
Back
Top