How Can You Move a Pi Bond Into a Cycloalkane?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Phil Massie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bond Pi
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on transforming a pi bond into a cycloalkane, specifically aiming for methylcyclohexene. The proposed method involves hydrohalogenation followed by dehydrohalogenation, leading to constitutional isomers. Participants note that endocyclic pi bonds are generally more stable than exocyclic ones, which could influence product formation. It is suggested that the desired product can be favored through specific reaction pathways, such as using an acid-catalyzed E2 elimination mechanism. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of reaction mechanisms and stability in achieving the target transformation.
Phil Massie
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello. This is driving me a little mad, and some assistance would be hugely appreciated.

Homework Statement


Show how the following transformation can be achieved (more than one step may be involved)

Homework Equations



pf01.jpg


The Attempt at a Solution


The only approach i could come up with was the following:

1. hydrohalogenation of the alkene substituent with H-Cl, putting a Cl on the more substituted C atom and an H on the less substituted C.

2. dehydrohalogenation should then produce constitutional isomers, as there are 3 \beta carbons, 2 of which produce the same molecule (i think) and both constitutional isomers have tri substituted double bonds. the required pruduct is then one of the constitutional isomers, methylcyclohexene.

I just saw in another textbook something about endocyclic \pi bonds being more stable than exocyclic \pi bonds. Is this the case in this problem? and would that mean that the required product would be the only one formed?

Thanks in advance for any help. Its late and i can't think anymore...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Phil Massie said:
2. dehydrohalogenation should then produce constitutional isomers, as there are 3 \beta carbons, 2 of which produce the same molecule (i think) and both constitutional isomers have tri substituted double bonds. the required pruduct is then one of the constitutional isomers, methylcyclohexene.

I just saw in another textbook something about endocyclic \pi bonds being more stable than exocyclic \pi bonds. Is this the case in this problem? and would that mean that the required product would be the only one formed?


You're correct there are 3 beta hydrogens, with the possibility of two different products from an E2 reaction. I'm not sure about different stabilities of endo/exo cyclic rings, but even if the two products were equally stable and the two reaction pathways had the same activation energy, you would still get 66% the product you were looking for, because there are twice as many ways to form the product you want.
 
Thanks thanks thanks!
really appreciate you taking the time for this :)
I love these forums!
 
You wouldn't even need to hydrohalogenate/dehydrohalogenate. Look at the mechanism of the acid-catalyzed E2 elimination, first step. The product is a carbocation at the 3o carbon. Loss of H+ will give you the endocyclic isomer. Any exocyclic product would be recycled again and eventually the thermodynamic product is obtained.
 
Using what little I know from basic organic chemistry, I would simply 1) brominate and 2) run an E2 reaction using a sterically-encumbered base such as tert-butoxide.
 
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