If you had to breakdown chemistry into core intuitions, how would you organize it?

Speaking of Sn reactions. I bought this document from masterorganicchemistry a while back and it proven itself to be quite usefull.

I found that for myself, keeping things such as electronegativities, polarizability and spacial awerness of the molecules in mind when working with reactions helps alot.

Yeah. I think you can classify that under "Molecular" chemical/physical properties. properties.

bump

t. premed

bumperino

>I almost want to break up reaction mechanisms to include both the molecular components (is it nucleophilic? electrophilic? etc.) involved
Check out Ian Fleming's book on frontier orbitals. The "electron-pushing" heuristic for polar reactions is really just a convenient shorthand for the qualitative behavior of waves

Cheers

I find myself using the top one much more. The bottom one makes it look like those electrons are completely off limits.

Anyways, does anybody here know what would happen visually if you made a polyurethane?

>core intuitions
wat

All chemistry can be subdivided into two groups:

A- making drugs

B- making bombs

you know, basic shit that helps you think about more difficult shit that you kinda just know from studying hard

this chart really helped me alot as a christian trying to learn chemistry
my parents don't want me to go to college for chemistry because they say it's indoctrination and it'll turn me gay and a socialist, so they bought me physics text books by kent hovind instead

Yeah, i watched a few lectures on the subject and i've got to say, it's the modt elegant and explenatory model of chemical interactions i know of..

And i finally know why activation energy is higher than intermidiate in sn reactions, never thought of antibonding orbitals before.

Here's the link if it's of any use for you: youtu.be/XGanunxYg6A

why did they rename all the elements ?, seems needlessly confusing
>magnesium,neon,sulfur.indium,hassium all share the same letter
>selenium,iodine,gold are just a fucking line

do they hate mendeleev or something ?

Read the table as you would a sentence, autist..

how the fuck is a periodic table a sentence ?
also in that pic they made the new names of all the elements fucking microscopic so i cant read it, only the new letters they gave them.

Read the table as you would a sentence, autist
>WhEn He MaDe ThE WoRlD GoD ...

that's not how you read a table you dumb fuck
i can do the same thing
HHe Li BeB CN OFNe NaMg

stringing together atomic symbols like that dosnt make sense, especially since it dosnt correspond to any chemical like OH or NaCl or something.

>Ian Fleming

--

On topic: seems like you can classify that easily under "bonding/structure" if you can nudge that between the chemical/physical properties of atoms and molecules in that list.

>i can do the same thing
you did it!

yes but what does it mean?
what is 'HHe' or 'OFNe'
im pretty sure such chemicals have never been observed .

What the fuck are you on about?

Total AuTiSt

Professors never really seem to tire of that joke. Like, it's not terribly original, but it just gets funnier every time you hear it.

Anyways, it's a very elegant interrelationship between structure and reactivity. You can predict/rationalize a fairly wide range of reactions and regioselectivities with HOMO/LUMO tables. Or today, fast HOMO/LUMO calculations in your computational chemistry software package. Include the other orbitals and you get a better result as well.
There's a really massive amount you can go into on just bonding/electronic structure, say in quantum chemistry, but the mathematical overhead is huge for non-specialists and there's a lot of ground to cover while you get bogged down in seemingly trivial results and autistic formalism. If you like math it's a good idea to go beyond the "undergrad pchem" material into some of that, but the true beauty of frontier orbital theory is how much it achieves with very little math.
Look more at computational chemistry if you want to "bridge" electronic structure with reactivity, reaction pathways, mechanisms, kinetics/dynamics, etc. at a more nontrivial level

Thank God that the chemists are here today. I was afraid that my thread wouldn't generate any valuable discussion. Thanks for the book recommendation, I'm not quite there yet, but I hope to be after this year's courseload.

>
Look more at computational chemistry if you want to "bridge" electronic structure with reactivity, reaction pathways, mechanisms, kinetics/dynamics, etc. at a more nontrivial level
Is there any reason why this is reserved for "computational chemistry"? Sounds like this would just be physical chemistry or maybe one of the other specializations unless it requires modeling. Am I just misinformed on what computational chemistry entails?

>Fleming's science and mathematical texts are top-notch. My first exposure to his work was when I was given a copy of "Casino Royale," a book on casino probabilities and card-counting. While it was a little out of my field, learning about systems like High-Low as well as Effect of Removal definitely improved my understanding of on-the-fly statistical projections. A few years later, I read Moonraker for a course on orbital ballistics - this was much more my speed, and I learned a great deal about hyperbolic and parabolic trajectories. More recently, I read (mostly for recreational purposes) "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang," which, while aimed at a juvenile audience, still greatly enhanced my knowledge of internal combustion engines - hey, I'm a rocket surgeon, not a mechanical engineer. His most recent text, "Frontier Orbitals and Organic Chemical Reactions," while less imaginatively-named than his earlier works, still facilitated my understanding of peroxide-based liquid fuels and how to correctly predict outer-shell orbital interactions as well as electron pushing for that murky area between the organic and inorganic fields of chemistry, oxidation.
From Amazon reviews.

Jesus christ, user

Have you seen this? adequacy.org/stories/2001.10.14.163749.94.html

>But what was THE WORD.
More please.

bump

where are my autistic chemists at? r8 my simple heuristics system

you should bump this shit, like they do in the future

>Is there any reason why this is reserved for "computational chemistry"? Sounds like this would just be physical chemistry
Well, computational chemistry -is- a pchem field. It's just more applied, and concerned with connections to more broadly relevant chemical properties/phenomena. That, and it refers more to the methods you use, emphasizing calculations over formalism. Pchem is a huge topic, you have both "chemical physics in general" and "chemical physics how they pertain to their specific emergent properties"

this

bump

I guess all of the chemists are busy doing their natural product syntheses and don't feel like commenting on the summaries of a pleb like me. It's okay, I understand.

this should help you for 3 weeks of first semester organic

Have fun drawing a Kolbe carboxylation with that retarded representation. Or explaining activating/deactivating effects.

>implying carboxylation can't be explained through atomic properties, molecular structure, bonding, active functional groups and how they contribute to reaction mechanism, how heating is required due to thermodynamic constraints, etc.
Brainlet premed detected. Go memorize and regurgitate somewhere else.

what's the meaning of OP's picture?

representing the electrons as delocalized is more akin to reality?

>like commenting on the summaries of a pleb like me
>r8 my simple heuristics system
Where? Have you posted this yet?

Read the OP.

I hate drawing lines. Circles are quicker and don't expose my terrible handwriting as badly.

he was talking about the "delocalisation curve" retarded-circle-in-hexagon benzene representation you brainlet

It's both less intuitive for mechanisms and harder to draw.

Oh, you're right. My bad. Now I look like an asshole.

>Read the OP.
But I don't see any heuristic there, all you've done is clumsily try to partition the field

Is it that clumsy? I've finished general chemistry and my first semester of organic chemistry, and I thought that it would be a good idea to see what I've learned. These seem to be the most general, simplified dimensions to look at when understanding chemical reactions, and more nuanced and specific phenomena, such as molecular orbital theory, VESPR, catalysis, functional groups, etc., can be classified under one of these categories.

>Is it that clumsy?
Yes.

I see what you're trying to do, and it might work when it comes to teaching the material in a basic chemistry class, but real chemistry problems usually can't be partitioned that easily.

Taking a really basic example, you run a reaction and you end up with a precipitate. If you try to approach the problem from only one angle, say polarity, maybe you'll figure "the reaction was run in water, so clearly I made something non-polar that's not soluble in water." That's great, except
>Maybe you made crystals
>Maybe your compound IS polar, but still not soluble (like lead iodide).
>Maybe your compound cooled down resulting in a lower solubility causing the compound to crash out.

There are ways of approaching problems to make them simpler, but all of chemistry is interrelated and you can't really just look at a problem from one approach and expect that to be right (unless you're taking a test and it says "now consider this approach...")

Okay. That's a fair and helpful criticism. Now I don't mean to use this little writeup to categorize chemical reactions as one-dimensional. Instead, I want to consider multiple factors at once, since any of these categories could be involved in chemical phenomena, so you have to consider each angle for a full understanding depending on the problem. Do you think it's still an issue?

but he said literally the opposite

Why would anybody make a list like this only to limit themselves from considering one concept of chemistry at a time? Seems useful for remembering to examine a particular reaction from multiple angles in order to understand it.

bump

>my parents don't want me to go to college for chemistry because they say it's indoctrination and it'll turn me gay and a socialist

Should have reinforced that you were doing chemistry and chemical engineering

>not already gay and socialist
spot the brainlet

bump

You shouldn't draw your benzene rings like this, it can lead to mistakes (e.g. drawing impossible structures of polycyclic molecules)

bump