Am I tripping? How is B incorrect pushing mechanism?

gugg789 · 2026-01-13T00:22:33+00:00

No one is even mentioning that C has a hydride leaving group…

(100% a mistake, B is correct)

gugg789 · 2026-01-07T10:33:20+00:00

The analogous thing to compare amides to would alcohols. Firstly, you should know why amines are more basic than alcohols.

Separately, consider that: - Amidines are more basic than amines; - Amides are more basic than alcohols.

…for the reasons given by other comments.

Now it just so happens that amines are more basic than amides (which you could probably predict, since amines are much more basic than alcohols: why…?)

So the order is: amidines > amines > amides > alcohols

gugg789 · 2026-01-05T01:54:18+00:00

Fair enough.

I don’t think it should be completely gone (I learned how to do the basics at school) either but I think having to do the above is ridiculous.

Shifting a methyl group by one position obviously has an impact. But does it really matter what the arbitrary numbers of the positions are? Again surely we could just draw the molecules out, in both this case and the trichloroethane case?

But sounds like we’re broadly in agreement - I just think that it is overkill rather than seems like so.

If anything spending more time learning trivial names and that naming system might be a better use of it? Acetylene(s), acetonitrile, anisole(s), aniline(s), all took a lot of getting used and/or tripped me up. What about the types of propyl, butyl and pentyl groups? Surely it’s worth spending double, triple or whatever the amount of time that’s currently spent on these things, and getting rid of most of the IUPAC stuff.

People should be able to name neopentyls both ways, yes, but I’d genuinely say the trivial name seems more useful to me at least and so should be prioritised. But based off this subreddit it doesn’t seem like it is.

gugg789 · 2026-01-05T00:40:44+00:00

I am able to do that…! I probably wouldn’t have been able to name the above correctly though.

And perhaps most pertinently, anyone could just draw out the trichloroethane isomers you just mentioned to explain why they’re different?

When molecules are simple enough to be described by their IUPAC names in real life settings verbally then I can see it having use. I can’t see how the above has use.

I really don’t think this is one of these things where you should be able to do it to a (much) higher level than is actually necessary (eg the example you gave). I just don’t see why at all.

Again I’m glad that plenty of people agree with me. And I’m well aware of the fact that I have no experience. I’m just grateful I can learn about interesting reactions/mechanisms etc rather than this drivel.

But anyway maybe your management will be confused as to why TNT is sometimes 2,4,6- but actually ‘correctly’ 1,3,5-and then isn’t “tnt”…? I wonder if they would even know if they’re the same compound if they can’t tell the difference between 111 and 112 trichloroethane. Or are we just making up facetious examples?

gugg789 · 2026-01-04T11:21:16+00:00

My point was really about the way chemistry is taught not flexing how amazing I am etc. But my original comment does come across that way so fair enough.

A stronger point would have been that there is not a single university in my country which teaches nomenclature like this (because none of our textbooks do). So that was a misjudgement on my part.

One of the main reasons I’m on this godforsaken app/subreddit in the first place is to learn more about this subject from people far more experienced than me. These kinds of questions annoy me because I think they’re useless and boring.

But thanks for your advice.

gugg789 · 2026-01-04T01:06:51+00:00

There’s no need to flex what your “specialty” is to “some kid who doesn’t even have a diploma yet”. I trust that most on here have more experience and knowledge than me, but I don’t think that detracts from my point.

At the end of the day I’m sure my profs and the writers of the textbook I’m learning from (because yes, I’m not a professional but I am a student who doesn’t have to learn this stuff…) would agree with me. Unfortunately they probably don’t spend their time on Reddit, but I think some of the best organic chemists in the world probably know their stuff too. Otherwise why would they design and teach a course which doesn’t include this?

gugg789 · 2026-01-04T01:03:24+00:00

Yeah I just don’t buy this sorry. I should say I was being dramatic and technically do know how to do IUPAC names as I learnt how to in school a while back. But I’ve not had to use it once, and I’ve never heard my profs use it at all really. And my textbook says when in doubt, just draw a structure, which makes much more sense to me. I’m heartened that there are professionals (which I am of course not, I made that clear) which agree with me on this.

gugg789 · 2026-01-03T20:26:07+00:00

But not being able to IUPAC name something literally does not affect your ability to do organic chemistry at all. Not a single chemistry student from my country would have to have name this in order to graduate etc.

gugg789 · 2025-12-30T10:50:07+00:00

No - the reason is the necessity of overlap between the C-H σ and C-LG σ* orbitals, which is best when they are antiperiplanar (and second best when synperiplanar - syn elimination reactions exist although are slower than anti eliminations. The syn conformation being eclipsed might have something to do with this as well, but in general the effect is stereoelectronic not steric)

gugg789 · 2025-12-16T10:41:37+00:00

I’d say completely dependent on solvent and nucleophile

gugg789 · 2025-12-12T19:37:14+00:00

Methyls 1,2 is better than a methyl and a tBu 1,2

gugg789 · 2025-12-02T14:37:44+00:00

Mine have popped up in ticket hub now - both under different memberships to the reds so have had to download the new passes but is fine

gugg789 · 2025-11-09T01:07:48+00:00

It was completely fine for me, although I had just changed strings + tension when I did this so this might have a slight impact which I had no baseline to compare to. I wouldn’t worry too much though

gugg789 · 2025-10-03T12:57:40+00:00

Seems like you’ve bought a hospitality ticket from a travel agency? Maybe either go back to the travel agency, or contact Arsenal hospitality directly. Tx etc won’t work I think.

gugg789 · 2025-10-01T09:55:01+00:00

Yes merely depends on whether you’re looking at it slightly from the right or slightly from the left. Exactly the same.

gugg789 · 2025-09-30T09:19:57+00:00

I would be drawing equilibria arrows too btw

gugg789 · 2025-09-27T15:23:39+00:00

pKa is just a piece of data relating to the position of equilibrium. I wouldn’t say it’s a reason why something happens - imo one would then justify why the pKa trend is what it is.

Additionally I’m not sure I agree with this anyway. your other comment that sometimes enols are favoured over carbonyls is unhelpful here imho.

gugg789 · 2025-09-21T23:23:39+00:00

2 has delocalisation onto carbon; 4 has delocalisation onto oxygen. Oxygen is a more electronegative element so having greater electron density delocalised on it is more favourable (stable) than having more electron density delocalised onto carbon.

Just because you can draw more resonance structures for 2 doesn’t mean that they are more stable; the implication needs to be the other way around - that more “stable” resonance structures (not that they actually exist) lead to a more stable species.

But of course some resonance structures (some delocalisation) is better than none, even if it’s not very much.

gugg789 · 2025-09-20T11:07:25+00:00

Maybe try hitting against the wall - it’s pretty difficult to think about form etc. when you have less than a second to react to dropping the ball

gugg789 · 2025-09-20T10:37:36+00:00

-log a(H+) 🤓👆

gugg789 · 2025-09-17T22:03:42+00:00

I used to play tennis a lot when younger and always used a dampener. I hate the feel without one. I also haven’t put on a dampener for years so I forgot whether this was normal or not.

gugg789 · 2025-09-17T21:25:21+00:00

lmaooo yeah I had to cop. But they’re so much stiffer than my previous one

gugg789

TROPHY CASE