Which Chair Config is More Stable: Axial or Equatorial?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sslsn
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the stability of two chair conformations, A and B, with emphasis on their axial and equatorial substituents. It is noted that conformer A has three equatorial methyl groups, while conformer B has only one, suggesting A is more stable. However, the key point is to compare the most stable conformers of each compound rather than their individual configurations. The correct conclusion is that conformer A is more stable overall. The focus should remain on the most stable conformer for accurate analysis.
Sslsn
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
The question asks which is the more stable conformational isomer (A or B). i drew both chair configurations for each (see pic below). For the first chair, isn't B more stable because it has 1 eq. while A has none? For the second chair, isn't A more stable because it has 3 eq, and B only has 2?

How do you determine overall which is more stable after drawing all 4 chairs (correct answer is A)?http://i.imgur.com/V5zHt.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, the confomer of A that has 3 axial methyl groups has higher energy than the confomer of B that has only 1 axial methyl group.

That is not the question. Your question was what compound is more stable. You look at the most stable conformer of each compound and compare only those two structures.
 
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