Talk:Mod:xienzato123

2: The energies are excellent and thermodynamic vs. kinetic control is covered. Bending energy is correctly identified as the major difference between the dihydro cpds and is explained well.

3: Energies and structures are good and the stereoselectivity is accounted for with correct mechanisms. The reason the Grignard reagent cannot be modelled is that MM2 doesn’t have parameters for dealing with a Mg2+ ion.

4: The energies are almost right; the CO-down isomer is actually the more stable of the two. Hyperstable alkenes are well defined.

5: Your energies are a little high, although they are in the correct order. You may have missed the “right” H-bond (more than one was available). The discussion of factors affecting nucleophilic attack at CO is good as is the rationalisation for the relatively fast reactions (intramolecular reaction faster than intermolecular). The rationalisation for the reactivity of the different systems is as yet still unknown. Although the authors of the relevant paper claim that only certain conformations can react, it is clear by simple manipulation that they can all do so. MM2 analysis of the starting material doesn’t offer the full explanation.

6: Your structures and MO diagrams are good as are the calculated IR stretches. The change in C-Cl bond strength is well explained.

MP: Good rigid choice of molecules, with good explanation of optimisation. IR data is well tabulated and assigned. The NMR data is also well analysed and discussed and optical rotation is attempted and treated with appropriate scepticism. All in all an impressive amount of analysis and a good conclusion.