More Stereochemical Relationships: Crash Course Organic Chemistry #9
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
vdkmdd
I wish the show took better care with their language and focusses more on applications and less on naming conventions and definitions. The sentence -stereoisomers that have non-superimposable mirror images like s-carvone. (5-7 difficult terms in one sentence, why, and why show butan-ol on screen then. Who has remembered non-superimposable from last lesson, and can understand it within 0. 2s before the next term kicks in. Just say -isomers that have a mirror image are either enantiomer or are meso-compounds-.
There are also so many sentences that can lead to misunderstandings here. Plane polarized light is not vibrating in only one plane. The E or M fields do however oscillate in one plane. A slitted disc or lens will mostly just block light and is a very poor polarizer. The enantiomeric excess does tell the molecular fraction but in a non-obvious was: ee=fraction1-fraction2. The mirror image of the s/r tartaric acid is wrongly drawn if using the mirror technique as used 5s before with ss tartaric. For the specific rotation, the equation is only right when using water to dissolve. the chemical in for the concentration as you assume 1cm3 is 1ml. The image where meso compound is placed inside a box near the stereo isomers suggest that it is not an member of the set of stereo isomers but it is. This is related to the sentence: -one molecule can have many isomers-, which by definition it can't have. You need at least two molecules to compare to each other to see if the are isomers from each other and which category they may fall in.
reply
I wish the show took better care with their language and focusses more on applications and less on naming conventions and definitions. The sentence -stereoisomers that have non-superimposable mirror images like s-carvone. (5-7 difficult terms in one sentence, why, and why show butan-ol on screen then. Who has remembered non-superimposable from last lesson, and can understand it within 0. 2s before the next term kicks in. Just say -isomers that have a mirror image are either enantiomer or are meso-compounds-.
There are also so many sentences that can lead to misunderstandings here. Plane polarized light is not vibrating in only one plane. The E or M fields do however oscillate in one plane. A slitted disc or lens will mostly just block light and is a very poor polarizer. The enantiomeric excess does tell the molecular fraction but in a non-obvious was: ee=fraction1-fraction2. The mirror image of the s/r tartaric acid is wrongly drawn if using the mirror technique as used 5s before with ss tartaric. For the specific rotation, the equation is only right when using water to dissolve. the chemical in for the concentration as you assume 1cm3 is 1ml. The image where meso compound is placed inside a box near the stereo isomers suggest that it is not an member of the set of stereo isomers but it is. This is related to the sentence: -one molecule can have many isomers-, which by definition it can't have. You need at least two molecules to compare to each other to see if the are isomers from each other and which category they may fall in.
reply
------Aditya
What is the reason that S and R enantiomers _cannot_ be non-experimentally mapped to L and D? Not even with fancy atomic-level EM-wave simulation-tools? This would mean that we (the scientific community) don't fundamentally understand what cause of the rotation is within molecules.
reply
What is the reason that S and R enantiomers _cannot_ be non-experimentally mapped to L and D? Not even with fancy atomic-level EM-wave simulation-tools? This would mean that we (the scientific community) don't fundamentally understand what cause of the rotation is within molecules.
reply
Paul
Just to sound better than you guys, well in this way, I know enough about naming org molecules I got the diagram correct.
Of course I often spell molecule 'molocule' so I'm not perfect.
The rest is somewhat new stuff.
reply
Just to sound better than you guys, well in this way, I know enough about naming org molecules I got the diagram correct.
Of course I often spell molecule 'molocule' so I'm not perfect.
The rest is somewhat new stuff.
reply
Arnau
First of all, I'm a huge fan of the series and of crash course in general. I'm looking this one to refresh some stuff I've learned in my biochemistry degree and it's been so informative! You are so grate at doing this
reply
First of all, I'm a huge fan of the series and of crash course in general. I'm looking this one to refresh some stuff I've learned in my biochemistry degree and it's been so informative! You are so grate at doing this
reply
devyanshi
Why did you relate D configuration to dextrorotatory and L configuration to laevorotatory. That's supposed to be d- and l-. D and L have different meaning. Like there is D-(+)-Glucose and there is D-(-) -Fructose.
reply
Why did you relate D configuration to dextrorotatory and L configuration to laevorotatory. That's supposed to be d- and l-. D and L have different meaning. Like there is D-(+)-Glucose and there is D-(-) -Fructose.
reply
BioChemoPhysio
I-ve never fully understood how a vial if organic molecules could -rotate- polarized light. How do they do this, even though they-re in random orientations within the solution itself?
reply
I-ve never fully understood how a vial if organic molecules could -rotate- polarized light. How do they do this, even though they-re in random orientations within the solution itself?
reply
Jeuro38
11: 19 Can't you also deduce 2R, 3S and 2S, 3R are the same from the fact that you can number the carbons from whichever end and get the same carbon numbers for the chiral centers?
reply
11: 19 Can't you also deduce 2R, 3S and 2S, 3R are the same from the fact that you can number the carbons from whichever end and get the same carbon numbers for the chiral centers?
reply
Korsos
3: 31 The nomenclature of R/S or D/L has nothing to do with the way polarized light is rotated. Not all D sugars are also + sugars as neither all L sugars are - sugars, for example
reply
3: 31 The nomenclature of R/S or D/L has nothing to do with the way polarized light is rotated. Not all D sugars are also + sugars as neither all L sugars are - sugars, for example
reply
LeafLeafy
This is an incredibly informative and very fun series, so I definitely wanted to make that point first, but I love your style this episode too!
reply
This is an incredibly informative and very fun series, so I definitely wanted to make that point first, but I love your style this episode too!
reply
Scott
Leverodatory and Dextrarodatory. Couldn't just call it Left rotating and right rotating. Because the terminology isn't complicated enough. ---
reply
Leverodatory and Dextrarodatory. Couldn't just call it Left rotating and right rotating. Because the terminology isn't complicated enough. ---
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
