Timeline for 1H splitting pattern of benzyl CH2 protons
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2021 at 18:55 | vote | accept | NotEvans. | ||
| Aug 2, 2018 at 16:46 | answer | added | Zhe | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 2, 2018 at 15:01 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackChemistry/status/1025033974622703616 | ||
| Aug 2, 2018 at 14:31 | comment | added | Zhe | Well, it has to be an apparent singlet. It's diastereotopic like you said... But the fact that's under consideration is that it is an apparent singlet rather than not. | |
| Aug 2, 2018 at 14:09 | comment | added | Outlander | @Zhe They are not that far away in my opinion (i guess this is determined by ones experience). Also it is better to interpret NMR spectra using symmetry rather which protons look like they are in the same environment. Take for example this: ClP(NPhBn)2, the two CH2 protons of the Bn look like they have the same environment. Nevertheless, they resonate as two dd due to coupling between them and coupling to the P because based on symmetry they are not equivalent. In the above, i suspect the singlet is actually an apparent singlet due to coupling to many protons with similar J. | |
| Aug 2, 2018 at 12:27 | comment | added | Zhe | @AMM I think he's saying that the chiral environment that results in those protons being diastereotopic is very far away. | |
| Aug 2, 2018 at 8:31 | comment | added | Outlander | They should both be multiplets due to coupling with the unequivalent aryl protons and between each other. Were both of them run on the same instrument? Was the singlet a bit too broad? The CH2 protons are diastereotopic since there is no plane of symmetry or Cn rotation that can relate them due to the asymmetry of the right part of the molecule. | |
| Aug 2, 2018 at 7:02 | comment | added | NotEvans. | Yes. The 1,2-anti 1,4-anti is a singlet and the 1,2-syn 1,4-syn is a multiplet | |
| Aug 2, 2018 at 1:40 | comment | added | Zhe | Is the left compound the singlet and the right compound the multiplet? I drew out some chair conformations, and if I'm on the right track, then hopefully, I've correctly identified which is which. | |
| Aug 1, 2018 at 22:24 | history | edited | NotEvans. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 22 characters in body
|
| Aug 1, 2018 at 22:10 | history | asked | NotEvans. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |