Organic II - Reaction of Aromatic Compounds

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the reaction of chloroazirine and the role of propylmagnesium bromide as a Grignard reagent. The user identifies chlorine as a good leaving group, leading to the formation of an ionized azirine, and explores resonance structures to stabilize the intermediate. The presence of a methyl group is noted to influence the reaction, stabilizing the ionized form and affecting product formation. The user seeks clarification on the choice of propylmagnesium bromide for this reaction and questions the reasoning behind the "not observed" product. Understanding the stabilization and reactivity of the intermediate is crucial for grasping the overall reaction mechanism.
StefanoFIU
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



62322_479304715465_712235465_6806430_4591340_n.jpg





The Attempt at a Solution


I want to recognize the Cl as a good leaving group. After leaving, I get the ionized form of the chloroazirine reactant. Then, I want to draw some resonance structures to move the charge around the ring.
sadasd-1.jpg



I do not understand the role of propylmagnesium bromide (Grignard reagent?) or what to do next. Also I do not see the the reason why the "not observed" is not observed. Am I correct up until this point? I appreciate any help, preferably any tips that could lead me to the answer, thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Now I'm thinking that the methyl on the bottom ring exerts an effect on the entire compound forcing the propyl chain to attach to the bottom carbon of the chloroazirine (demonstrated in the major product).
 
The compound is asymmetrical. The methyl group is an electron-releasing group which stabilizes the intermediate formed, in this case the ionized azirine (formed upon removal of the Cl leaving group). Thus, the 3rd resonance structure is more stable than the first and second structures. Therefore, we should not expect to form the "not observed" product.

If the above is true, then my only problem left is to understand why propylmagnesium bromide was chosen for this reaction.
 
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