Just something that's been irking me because I see it on this sub all the time. I've tried to comment about it before but it was removed for a reason I can't remember.
Noids with CN (cyanide) in the name are not inherently any more dangerous than other noids. A cyanide is any organic compound containing a cyano group, C≡N. It's literally just a carbon triple bonded to a nitrogen. When we talk about cyanide colloquially, we're referring to cyanide salts like sodium or potassium cyanide, which will kill you. However, cyano-containing cannabinoids are complex organic molecules that do not freely dissociate to form CN- ions. You'll be fine.
https://preview.redd.it/7jslgy88wm581.png?width=880&format=png&auto=webp&s=66d0d403eb60d808f65704b283afd701aab9c98d
I have an organic chem prof who says that when naming alkanes, complex substituents are alphabetized by the last "word" in the substituent (e.g. (1,1-dimethylpropyl) would be alphabetized by "p").
Furthermore, he says that if you have multiple complex substituents, you don't alphabetize them at all- you order them in the name by increasing number on the parent chain.
I've been doing a ton of research on organic chemistry tutor, ucalgary, and a few other organic tutoring sites. They all say this is NOT the way alkanes are named. Has anyone seen this method that my prof uses? Or is he just completely cracked? Am I cracked?
http://imgur.com/a/gctpkxy
I'm studying organic chemistry with a student and we got to asking why the nitrates on TNT are in those specific spots. If you move the nitrate substituents to like the 2 3 6 or 2 3 5 spots does it really mess up the molecule?
i.e in a diol you have a methyl and amino substituent. Does the amino come first according to alphabet, or does it come second since it's still a functional group (and should be closer to parent chain?)
Journal of the American Chemical SocietyDOI: 10.1021/jacs.1c04247
Aidan W. McFord, Craig P. Butts, Natalie Fey, and Roger W. Alder
https://ift.tt/3xVPIVx
I can't figure it out at all.
Journal of the American Chemical SocietyDOI: 10.1021/jacs.1c02755
Joshua J. Sutton, Dan Preston, Philipp Traber, Johannes Steinmetzer, Xue Wu, Surajit Kayal, Xue-Z. Sun, James D. Crowley, Michael W. George, Stephan Kupfer, and Keith C. Gordon
https://ift.tt/3xeV5PH
Hey, question is in the title. Is this just convention or have i misunderstood something?
Inspired by molecular ferroelectrics induced by molecular rotors, multifunctional compound exhibiting both ferroelectricity and spin crossover behavior was constructed. The flip–flop motion of polarization unit results in the expression of ferroelectricity and spin crossover behavior.
Abstract
Ferroelectric spin crossover (SCO) behavior is demonstrated to occur in the cobalt(II) complex, Co(FPh‐terpy)22⋅3ac (1⋅3 ac; FPh‐terpy=4′‐((3‐fluorophenyl)ethynyl)‐2,2′:6′,2′′‐terpyridine) and is dependent on the degree of 180° flip–flop motion of the ligand's polar fluorophenyl ring. Single crystal X‐ray structures at several temperatures confirmed the flip–flop motion of fluorobenzene ring and also gave evidence for the SCO behavior with the latter behavior also confirmed by magnetic susceptibility measurements. The molecular motion of the fluorobenzene ring was also revealed using solid‐state 19F NMR spectroscopy. Thus the SCO behavior is accompanied by the flip–flop motion of the fluorobenzene ring, leading to destabilization of the low spin cobalt(II) state; with the magnitude of rotation able to be controlled by an electric field. This first example of spin‐state conversion being dependent on the molecular motion of a ligand‐appended fluorobenzene ring in a SCO cobalt(II) compound provides new insight for the design of a new category of molecule‐based magnetoelectric materials.
https://ift.tt/2OLrMU2
Title is misleading, what I mean is, how do the four extra carbons influence the electron density of the initial benzene ring?
I imagine it to be mesomerically electron withdrawing, if that is the case how would it compare against a bromo group which is just inductively withdrawing?
For clarity I’m not asking about substituents on naphthalene rings
Cheers
Ferroelectric spin crossover (SCO) behavior is demonstrated to occur in the cobalt(II) complex, [Co(FPh‐terpy) 2 ](BPh 4 ) 2 ( 1 ; FPh‐terpy = 4'‐((3‐fluorophenyl)ethynyl)‐2,2':6',2''‐terpyridine) and is dependent on the degree of 180° flip‐flop motion of the ligand’s polar fluorophenyl ring. Single crystal X‐ray structures at several temperatures confirmed the flip‐flop motion of fluorobenzene ring and also gave evidence for the SCO behavior with the latter behavior also confirmed by magnetic susceptibility measurements. The molecular motion of the fluorobenzene ring was also revealed using solid‐state 19 F‐NMR spectroscopy. Thus the SCO behavior is accompanied by the flip‐flop motion of the fluorobenzene ring, leading to destabilization of the low spin (LS) cobalt(II) state; with the magnitude of rotation able to be controlled by an electric field. This first example of spin‐state conversion being dependent on the molecular motion of a ligand‐appended fluorobenzene ring in a SCO cobalt(II) compound provides new insight for the design of a new category of molecule‐based magnetoelectric (ME) materials.
https://ift.tt/2OLrMU2
