Quick Organic Chem Nomenclature Question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around drawing the structural diagram for 2,4-dimethyl-1-heptyne. The user presents their structural representation but questions how the compound can have both a methyl group at position 2 and a triple bond. They express confusion over the carbon atom's bonding, noting that it appears to share five electrons instead of the four typically required by carbon. The response acknowledges the user's understanding and clarifies the bonding situation, emphasizing that the structure is valid despite the initial confusion. This highlights the complexities of organic chemistry nomenclature and bonding.
Batmaniac
Messages
22
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I am to draw a structural diagram of 2,4-dimethyl-1-heptyne.

2. The attempt at a solution

----------CH3
CH=C-CH2-CH-CH2-CH2-CH3
---CH3

I tried just using spaces but it wouldn't indent them so I used hyphens. Now, I'm fairly certain my answer is correct (one of many possibilities) but I have a question about this compound. How can it have a methly group on 2 in addition to a triple bond? The 'C' in my diagram is sharing 3 electrons with the Carbon to its left, one with the carbon to its right, and one with the carbon below it. That totals to five shared electrons when Carbon wants 4. What's the deal?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have an excellent grasp of the situation.
 
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