Why Are the Top Methyl Groups Not Chemically Equivalent?

  • Thread starter Thread starter silversurf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Equivalent
AI Thread Summary
The top methyl groups in the molecule are not chemically equivalent due to their differing positions relative to the oxygen atom, which affects their electronic environment. Each methyl group experiences different levels of deshielding, particularly one that is influenced by the pi system nearby. This results in three distinct singlets in HNMR instead of the expected two. The inability of the groups to rotate further contributes to their non-equivalence. Understanding these factors clarifies why the methyl groups behave differently in NMR spectroscopy.
silversurf
Messages
25
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I attached a picture of the molecule. My question is why are the methyl group at the top not chemically equivalent. The answer says that this molecule makes three singlets in HNMR but I was thinking it should make only 2 because the top methyl groups are chemically equivalent aren't they?




Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2013-07-11 at 2.37.45 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2013-07-11 at 2.37.45 PM.png
    730 bytes · Views: 458
Physics news on Phys.org
They are not equivalent because each of the methyl groups are in different positions (ie different distance from the oxygen). Also they cannot rotate.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
The distance of the two bridge methyls are certainly different distances (through space) from the oxygen but the largest effect is due to the position of one of the methyls in the deshielding zone of the pi system.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Oh I see. Thank you so much!
 
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