What Is the Major Organic Product B in This SN1 Reaction?

AI Thread Summary
In the SN1 reaction discussed, the leaving group is -OTs, leading to the formation of a secondary carbocation. The presence of adjacent tertiary and primary carbons influences the stability of the carbocation. This results in the possibility of rearrangement, which can lead to the formation of a more stable product. The major organic product B is likely derived from this rearrangement rather than the initially expected racemic mixture. Understanding the stability of carbocations is crucial for predicting the major product in SN1 reactions.
physstudent1
Messages
267
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Find the major organic product B of http://www.webassign.net/userimages/kasandbe/CH221_ssii_02/CH221_exam2_ssii_02_7a.gif

(with ethanol at 0 degrees Celsius)

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I thought that since it is a SN1 reaction the -OTs would be the LG and that -OCH2CH3 would connect to the carbon it was on and form a racemic mixture but this isn't the right answer can anyone clear this up I seem to be confused? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That's certainly possible but only as a minor product. You will note that in this SN1 reaction, OTs- is indeed the leaving group. Study the carbonium ion that results. It is a secondary carbonium ion next to a 3o carbon and a 1o carbon. What might happen?
 
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