User contributions for Alana

15:5815:58, 29 October 2009 diff hist +350 Talk:Mod:coke1 No edit summary
15:5015:50, 29 October 2009 diff hist +653 N Talk:Mod:coke1 New page: Cp dimers: Energies look OK. Your discussion of endo/exo Diels-Alder isn't clear to me - terms line "in line" would be clearer with a diagram. You say that 1 has non-bonding orbital int...
15:4015:40, 29 October 2009 diff hist +447 Talk:Mod:yh09mod1 No edit summary current
15:3015:30, 29 October 2009 diff hist +234 Talk:Mod:yh09mod1 No edit summary
15:1915:19, 29 October 2009 diff hist +345 Talk:Mod:yh09mod1 No edit summary
15:1015:10, 29 October 2009 diff hist +336 Talk:Mod:yh09mod1 No edit summary

18:0018:00, 28 October 2009 diff hist +282 N Talk:Mod:yh09mod1 New page: 1.2.1 Cp Dimers: Energies and structures look fine. You've mentioned "hydrolysis" a couple of times when you mean "hydrogenation"! What particular interactions are responsible for the...
17:4717:47, 28 October 2009 diff hist +17 Mod:organic →Module 1 Marking

18:5518:55, 15 December 2008 diff hist +1,365 N Talk:Mod:cjmk1956 New page: Part 1.1: I don’t understand why your energies for 1 -4 are given in Hartrees – you were meant to use MM2 (didn’t you?) which would give the energies in (much more useful) kcal/mol. ... current
18:2418:24, 15 December 2008 diff hist +2,093 N Talk:Mod:joto1357 New page: Part 1.1: Energies and structures for 1 and 2 are fine. Why is 1 lower in energy? Why is 2 kinetically preferred? You give the same energies for 3 and 4, which is odd (4 should be lower). ... current
17:5317:53, 15 December 2008 diff hist +1,577 N Talk:Mod:xyzzy New page: Part 1.1: Energies for 1-4 are fine (although you should have given them to one dec. place). You should also have included your optimised structures in the report. Why is 1 more stable tha... current
17:2617:26, 15 December 2008 diff hist +1,948 N Talk:Jb406-1 New page: Part 1.1: Energies for 1 and 2 are fine, but you should have shown your minimised structures. The formation of 2 is a cycloaddition, not an electrocyclic reaction. Both 1 and 2 would be fo... current
16:1816:18, 15 December 2008 diff hist +1,646 N Talk:Mod:hcn06report1 New page: Part 1.1 Structures and energies for 1 and 2 are fine. Why is the exo isomer more stable? You are right that the orbital coefficients help determine which atoms are involved in bonding,... current

18:4318:43, 12 December 2008 diff hist +2,025 N Talk:Module1pl506 New page: 1.1 Energies and structures for 1 and 2 are fine. Why is 2 kinetically preferred? What structural features explain the higher torsional strain in 2? Your explanation for the higher ben... current
16:1016:10, 12 December 2008 diff hist +1,538 N Talk:Mod:qpzm1029 New page: 1.1 Structures, energies, discussions all excellent. Well done for doing the TS-modelling! 1.2 Structure, energy and analysis of 5 excellent. Structure and energy of 7 also fine. In ... current
15:1415:14, 12 December 2008 diff hist +1,779 N Talk:Mod:lh106module1 New page: 1.1 Structures and energies for 1 and 2 are good. Why is 2 kinetically preferred? Energy for 4 is OK, but 3 is far too high. Unfortunately, you haven't given the structures, so I ca... current
14:0614:06, 12 December 2008 diff hist +2,110 N Talk:Parrot on a diet=poly-no-meal New page: 1.1 Your energies for 1 and 2 are very high! Your structure 1 is missing, but 2 looks OK, so I'm not sure why. Why is the endo-isomer kinetically preferred? Energies for 3 and 4 are... current
13:2513:25, 12 December 2008 diff hist +6 Talk:Mod:hardi180288 No edit summary current
13:2513:25, 12 December 2008 diff hist +955 N Talk:Mod:hardi180288 New page: 1.1 Good structures and energies. 1 and 2 are configurational isomers, not conformational! 3 and 4 are regioisomers, not conformers. 1.2 Good. There is another conformer of 7 with the ...

14:5014:50, 19 November 2008 diff hist +1,279 N Talk:Mod:sdaw6262 New page: 1.1 Structures and energies are good. What’s the reason for the kinetic endo-preference? 1.2 Structures and rationale for stereochem are good. Are there any other possible confs for 7... current
14:1914:19, 19 November 2008 diff hist +11 Talk:Mod:aw106010288 No edit summary current
14:1114:11, 19 November 2008 diff hist +1,176 N Talk:Mod:db9127organic New page: 1.1 Energies good. Why is the exo- isomer more stable than the endo? A diagram of the secondary orbital overlaps would have been good. The reaction is hydrogenation, not hydrolysis! 1.... current
13:4713:47, 19 November 2008 diff hist +1,984 N Talk:Mod:Rhubarbicon2802 New page: 1.1 Brief intro to the method/problem etc would have been nice. Why is the endo-adduct favoured kinetically? You’re along the right lines for the comparison of the hydrog isomers. 1... current
13:0613:06, 19 November 2008 diff hist +1,593 N Talk:Mod:sp mod1 New page: 1.1 Generally excellent. Actually, the alkene hydrogenation is unlikely to be thermodynamically controlled (which implies reversibility) – it will be kinetically controlled. However, w... current

19:1319:13, 18 November 2008 diff hist +1,764 N Talk:Mod:jp806organic New page: 1.1 Your structures 1 and 2 are both exo (enantiomers of each other!) 2 should be endo, and have the higher energy. What orbital interactions favour the endo D-A product? 3 and 4 are ... current
14:3014:30, 18 November 2008 diff hist +503 Talk:Mod:aw106010288 No edit summary
14:1214:12, 18 November 2008 diff hist +399 N Talk:Mod:aw106010288 New page: 1.1 Good structures and energies. You're right that the D-A is kinetically controlled...but you haven't really explained why the endo is kinetically preferred. The orbitals you've drawn ...
14:0214:02, 18 November 2008 diff hist +270 Talk:Mod:fjm1988 No edit summary current
13:5413:54, 18 November 2008 diff hist +95 Talk:Mod:fjm1988 No edit summary
13:5013:50, 18 November 2008 diff hist +265 Talk:Mod:fjm1988 No edit summary