November 25, 2024, 04:47:40 AM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Topic: Cycloalkanes stability  (Read 2434 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pranav

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-9
Cycloalkanes stability
« on: May 10, 2013, 01:27:42 AM »
I am not sure what rules to start with here. I think the 4th is the most stable as the substituents are trans to each other and there are least repulsion. How would I compare 3 and 2? ???
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 03:29:42 AM by Pranav »
Logged

Offline iamback

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
  • Mole Snacks: +2/-2
Re: Cycloalkanes stability
« Reply #1 on: May 10, 2013, 04:28:53 AM »
Answer should be A.

As far as the comparison is all about, see the hindrance.

In (3) methyl groups are diagonal carbons, In (2) it is on adjacent carbon hence populating it.
Logged

Offline Pranav

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-9
Re: Cycloalkanes stability
« Reply #2 on: May 10, 2013, 11:05:46 PM »
Quote from: iamback on May 10, 2013, 04:28:53 AM
Answer should be A.

A is not the answer.
Logged

Offline camptzak

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 159
  • Mole Snacks: +12/-11
Re: Cycloalkanes stability
« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2013, 11:37:15 PM »
its B

 ;D
Logged
"Chance favors the prepared mind"
-Louis Pasteur

Offline iamback

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
  • Mole Snacks: +2/-2
Re: Cycloalkanes stability
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2013, 10:47:33 PM »
Yeah..! Sorry it's B. I didn't paid much attention on it. I forget to see cis-tans. Try imagining the (2) and (3) in 3D. Still the concept is hindrance.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 11:31:50 PM by iamback »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Sponsored Links