Chemistry Why Are There Two Different Molecules from SN1?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alingy1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Molecules
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the formation of two different molecules from an SN1 reaction involving iodocyclohexane in water, specifically (1s,4s)-4-(tert-butyl)-1-methylcyclohexan-1-ol and (1r,4r)-4-(tert-butyl)-1-methylcyclohexan-1-ol. The presence of a trigonal planar carbocation intermediate allows for the formation of these two distinct products, despite both appearing achiral due to symmetry along carbons 1 and 4. The lowercase "r" and "s" notation indicates that these molecules are not true stereoisomers but rather different conformations that arise from free rotation around the carbon bonds. The discussion emphasizes the importance of visualizing molecular structures, suggesting the use of Newman projections to clarify the differences between the compounds. Understanding these concepts is crucial for grasping the nuances of stereochemistry in SN1 reactions.
alingy1
Messages
325
Reaction score
0
(1s,4s)-4-(tert-butyl)-1-methylcyclohexan-1-ol
(1r,4r)-4-(tert-butyl)-1-methylcyclohexan-1-ol
These are the two results given by the solution's manual textbook to this question:
Keeping in mind that carbocations have a trigonal planar structure, (a) write a structure for the carbocation intermediate and (b) write structures for the alcohol (or alcohols) that you would expect from reaction of iodocyclohexane in water.


Now, I want to understand why there are two molecules that are different. Both of them seem to be achiral because of the plane of symettry along carbon 1 and 4. Why are the "r" and "s" not capitalized?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yeah I looked over this yesterday, I was just too befuddled to reply. There are no chiral centers because the tert-butyl group experiences free rotation and because the compound is the same, whether the hydroxy or the methyl group lies on a wedge/dashes. If it is difficult to visualize in your head, you can always test this by drawing a Newman projection and rotating the front and back to see if there are indeed different compounds if you switch the position of the wedge/dashes.
 
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