Talk:Mod:lh106module1

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 can't tell why.

1.2 You can't compare the MM2 energies for 5 and 7 as they are completely different structures. Your energy for 5 is a little high, and that for 7 far too high. Again, I can't tell why as you haven't included the structures. Your explanation for the stereocontrol is not clear - why should any nucleophile attack "anti" to a hydrogen? Where is the carbonyl "pointing" in each case? How do the two nucleophile systems differ?

1.3 Your "down" isomer energy is fine; the other is too high - I suspect the 6-ring is in a boat conf instead of a chair. Again, you should have given the structures so that I could check them. Comments on the low reactivity of the alkene?

1.4 Unfortunately you haven't given any energies or structures, so it's hard for me to judge your results. Your discussion is also quite short.

1.5 Structures/orbitals OK. You should have discussed the reasons for the various IR shifts (e.g. why the two alkenes are different).

Mini-project - You've chosen a really nice example (in fact, my group published a synthesis of the cis-isomer a couple of years ago!!) How do you think the authors proved which was which? You should have listed the lit 13C values alongside yours to allow the reader to compare them. Also, some sort of quantitative/statistical analysis of how well they compare is needed. I'm not convinced that the two C-O stretches would be so different in the two isomers - you need to look more closely at the list of peaks!

Overall - it's a shame that a lot of your energies and structures are missing from the report.