Talk:Mod:jamesmac

Cp: Energies for 1 and 2 are OK; those for 3 and 4 are off slightly (although they are the right way round). Why is the endo-isomer kinetically preferred? What structural features cause the strain in 3? Note that getting the lowest energy product does NOT necessarily mean a reaction is under thermodynamic control - often, the same product is preferred both kinetically AND thermodynamically.

NAD: Discussion a bit hard to follow without being able to rotate your structures! For the second reaction, the amine attacks on the OPPOSITE side to the carbonyl...

Taxol: Energy for 9 is right; 10 is a bit too high - I can't see why without being able to rotate your structures, but I suspect the 6-ring might be a boat.

CCl2: HOMO looks a bit odd (partly because I'm not sure what orientation it's displayed in - can't see the structure underneath). Discussion of vibrations OK

Mini-project: Tricky choice because the molecules are conformationally flexible... However, nice discussion of the mechanism and predicted stereochemical outcome of the reaction (minor point: the stereocentre is badly drawn in the products!) Calcs of 13C seem fine - however, you should have tried to quantify how well each set fit with the experimental data. There are more peaks in the calculated spectrum because in the "real" one, conformational averaging of e.g. the two ortho-carbons on the Ph ring makes them equivalent. 1H J-values would only be useful if you knew the preferred conformations of the molecule (which modelling could help with, of course). COSY would not be useful as it doesn't tell the size of the couplings. NOESY can be used in conjuction with molecular modelling, which can indicate which protons are close together in space. You haven't gone into much detail as to how the authors used NMR to assign the stereochemistry (or how you think it would be done). Calculating the IR and UV was not necessary as they would not help in assigning stereochemistry.

Overall - good effort