Stability of Alkenes: Homework Solutions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priyadarshini
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stability
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the stability of alkenes, specifically addressing a homework question about which alkene is the most unstable. One participant suggests that the answer should be option 3 due to the presence of a tertiary carbon with the maximum number of alkyl groups, which typically enhances stability. However, another participant clarifies that the question focuses on overall stability rather than stability against electrophilic attacks. The confusion arises from interpreting the stability criteria in the context of the question. Ultimately, the key point is that the question is about identifying the least stable alkene, not its reactivity towards electrophiles.
Priyadarshini
Messages
191
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


WP_20160129_10_48_31_Pro.jpg

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


Shouldn't the answer be option 3 because the carbon there is a 3 degree carbon and it has the maximum number of alkyl groups attached to it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you referring to stability towards the attack of an electrophile ?
 
Suraj M said:
Are you referring to stability towards the attack of an electrophile ?
The question just asks which alkene is the most unstable. It doesn't refer to electrophilic attacks.
 
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