hypervalent_iodine

Not strictly related, but I believe you are missing a carbon in your unexpected product. As for your issue, you could try acidifying the hydrazide slightly. I have also had success with these reactions through refluxing in toluene. Admittedly, I was using aromatic isothiocyanates, but it’s a simple enough modification to try.

Apologies, I didn’t read your reasoning thoroughly. It would depend on the conditions, probably. You are right that the OH being orientated away from the alkyl group would be more thermally stable. Kinetic stability would favour hydride attack on the least hindered side, however. I believe the kinetic product will be favoured in this case. You should look up Cram’s rule. It explains the concepts in more detail.

You’re reasoning is sound, but I think you need to look again at how you e drawn the products. If the major product is the one where the hydride attacks on the opposit face to the alkyl group, then why have you drawn it on the same face in your major product?

I have to disagree here. I didn’t mention lone pairs in my answer, for example. Nor did I bring up HCl. They were both explicitly mentioned by the OP.

You are confusing a lot of concepts here. No one is talking about elemental sodium, chlorine, or hydrogen. The ions do have pairs of electrons, although H+ has none. That oxygen has two lone pairs (not one pair) of electrons is not directly related to the fact that it bonds to two atoms of hydrogen. At all. The H+ ion does not make HCl, nor does the Na+ make NaOH upon dissolution. That makes no sense for two reasons. Firstly, they are strong acids / bases, and by definition disassociate completely in water. Secondly, in no world would both HCl and NaOH exist in a solution at standard conditions together and not react to form NaCl and water. Respectfully, I would suggest refraining for answering homework questions if you are not at all familiar with the content up for discussion.

trevorjohnson32 has been suspended for two weeks for his tendancy towards being provocative and troll-like rather than engaging in actual discussion.

! Moderator Note We don’t give medical advice here. Please seek the help of a doctor.

Admins can, unless the member is banned. Not a power that’s often used, however. The reason for this new addition is that we have had cases where members have (rightly) reported PM’s from other members that have been abusive or spammy. When the other member is approached by staff, they complain that the rules don’t say anything about PM’s. It should be pretty obvious that you can’t use the messaging system to go around abusing or harassing people, but since we have had people try to wriggle out of warnings because it wasn’t clearly spelled out we decided to make it explicit.

Maybe think about the amine a bit more. Does it have any lone pairs?

Which bit are you claiming is the electrophile?

We have made an addition to the forum rules following a recent incident in which one member quoted another, deliberately altered their quote, and went on to respond as though they were their actual words. This is clearly unacceptable, and we have adjusted rule 2.2 to reflect this. Violations of this new term will be enforced as per any other infraction.

I've alerted our more tech savvy admin to this, so hopefully they'll have some suggestions for you.

seriously disabled has been suspended for one week for ignoring continued requests not to hijack threads.

Looks like GraphPad Prism, though they're fairly generic looking. Prism is (I think) pretty commonly used in the biological sciences, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where they come from.

Are you talking about solvation shells / cages? If so, the Na+ is attracted to the oxygen. If not, you'll need to clarify your question.

! Moderator Note Enough. If you can't post something of actual substance in your next post, this is getting closed.

! Moderator Note You have to do better than this. We expect rigorous, scientific justification for your ideas, not, 'I'm not buying it.' Why not? What specifically do you take issue with in the replies you've received? If you can't comply with this expectation, this thread will be closed.

As in, I'd make at least double what you think you need. As for the 1:2 dilutions, this is a very standard technique (serial dilution). You simply take some volume of a stock, your 800 ng / mL for example, and mix it with an equal volume of your solvent. This is now half the concentration of your first stock. Mix, then repeat with your new solution until you get the range you're after. I'm sure I don't need to tell you how to make a 0 ng / mL solution.

I would suggest making a stock to 0.5 mg / mL, then dilute from there. It depends on how good your scales are though. Once you have your stock, make up your highest concentration (1 uL stock made up to 625 uL) to at least double the required volume and the rest by performing a number of serial 1:2 dilutions until you get the range you need.

Right, I see. I interpreted it in the way I did based on what students are normally learning about regarding benzene and the movement of double bonds. I can see where your impression of the OP comes from, though I think that the question is designed to prompt thinking about resonance more than anything else. I'm not sure I see much of a place for discussing the structure you have drawn in any lower level chemistry course that would clearly illustrate anything they might be learning (double bond stability is normally taught in terms of substitution and E/Z configuration). That is just my opinion, albeit mildly informed from my own teaching experience. Of course, one should not underestimate the capacity for institutions to teach simple concepts in bizarre and convoluted ways. We'll never really know unless the OP comes back. Regarding your last comment, you are correct that they aren't thought of as isolated, "conventional," double bonds.

I have a problem with describing it as single bonds moving around. I didn't spot that in studiot's post, but I take issue with it there also. It's a misrepresentation of what happens, and doesn't follow from the question in the OP, hence being a possible source of confusion. At no point do the single bonds move. Only the double bonds. And it absolutely does work. If it helps, this is more or less what the OP is describing: I also did not understand what you meant when you said that double bonds were outdated. Since when was that true?

That's a feature of the functional group, yes, but what is it called specifically?

! Moderator Note Raider might not speak for the forum, but I'm reasonably sure I do. When I asked members to stop the bickering, I was speaking to you also.

! Moderator Note We do not need to go into the minutia of another thread in this one. We also do not need the bickering.

I chose not to because other's have given plenty of good starting points. There's not a lot I can add that wouldn't be simply answering the question. I did feel it prudent to ask for you to clarify your post however, as I for one couldn't make any sense of it, and I felt it could be especially confusing for the OP.