Aromatic vs ring strain
I was under the impression ring strain would matter more but they haven't considered that at all
17 Replies
@Dexter
Note for OP
+solved @user1 @user2... to close the thread when your doubt is solved. Mention the users who helped you solve the doubt. This will be added to their stats.should i just ignore ring strain, and why
Because in this case ring 1 isnt aromatic but ring 2 is
Thats why we will consider ring 2 to be more stable
i know that
but when should i consider ring strain, if at all
bond angle strain
inst that dancing resonance
or am i wrong
Ring strain exists when sp³ carbons have bond pairs closer to one another than the optimal 109°28'. But, you see, there are no sp³ carbons here in the second structure in the first place. The entire thing is planar, and the continuous delocalisation further stabilises it.
i think i am wrong
It's not. That's for cyclopropylmethyl carbocation
wrong ping
is there uhh
logic to that
the logic i used for ring strain was simply that the bond pair electrons were too close at a smaller angle
Frack, I clicked the first one that popped up. It went by recent order ig.
happens
Well, yeah, there is a considerable difference between 120° and 60°, but the resonance should take care of that.
oh alright then
is ring strain a prevalent effect at all?
i want to know where it stands in strength compared to other effects
Right there with any other steric hindrances.
In cases where you have substitutions or additions via an intermediate, keep an eye out for rearrangements, but if the intermediate is in resonance, neglect.
In case of elimination, resonance is gonna try to force itself into the product as much as it can. If it can't, it's probably a single step elimination and no chance of any kind of rearrangement.
It's just another kind of steric inhibition. Might slow down addition at certain centres, too, but that's about it I think.
ah, okay that clarifies things
thank you
+solved @Opt
Post locked and archived successfully!
Archived by
<@717724055217635398> (717724055217635398)
Time
<t:1737028365:R>
Solved by
<@763645886500175892> (763645886500175892)