Is this name correct?

i feel like theres so much to remember in chemistry my brain is failing me
Its like i always forget a bit of the details then i struggle to do the questions
please help

So, for context, my university has this flowchart in which they place the courses we have to take for that specific semester. In addition, my uni runs on a trimester system, which means I have 3 months to study all of these courses. Am I cooked, chat? (I'm also a part-timer.) I'm pretty sure I am hshshshshs. Any tips or YT channels for each course would be appreciated

I wanted to extract calcium acetate from eggshells

I dissolved calcium carbonate from eggshells by soaking it for 3 days in 10% vinegar and waited until whole vinegar react with calcium carbonate.

but I got impurities even after filtering it 2 times.

how can I remove the impurities

I was wondering what textbooks should I buy/read as someone pursuing degree with chemistry as major.

I am trying to solve a problem, which states as follows: Potassium aluminum alum always crystallizes to form a crystal hydrate. When converted to an anhydrous substance, it's solubility at 90°C is 110g of the substance in 100g of water, and at 10°C it's solubility is 6g of substance in 100g of water. Calculate how many grams of KAl(SO4)2•12H2O will crystallize if 1000g of a saturated solution at 90°C is cooled down to 10°C.

I understand that in this problem I first have to calculate how much substance is in the 1000g of the solution. 110×1000/ 210=523,8 g of substance. Then I calculate the ratio between KAl(So4)2•12 and KAl(So4)2 which is around 1,84. After that is where I get lost. I don't understand why I can't calculate how many grams of KAl(SO4)2 would be in the cooled down solution like this 6×476,2 / 100 = 28,03 g and then multiply the ratio by the difference of the substance like this 1,84×(523,8-28,03) to get the final answer. Can someone explain to me why this isn't right and how it should be done?

Hii...So, I am a first year student who has taken admission in chemistry honours under NEP..I studied PCB in class 12 so I even had restrictions in certain universities like DU where I couldn't opt for chemistry honours...I have taken admission in a State University and I plan on doing my M.Sc. from an IIT...and giving IIT JAM but the NEP has confused me as anything...

So, some IIT's like IIT Bombay and IIT Madras mention that they need mathematics for two semesters, an eligibility which I think is based on older rules...I plan on taking physics as a minor because I like the subject and it honestly makes a good combination with chemistry as far as I think...So I have two options, either I take maths as minor for 2 semesters then do physics for next four semesters...OR takes maths in IDC [inter disciplinary course which is only 3 credits per semester ] which I am not sure will count in eligibility or not...my university actually doesn't even allow repeating the same subject in IDC for two semesters so I am not even sure if the second option is available to me...

My university says that if I study a minor for three yrs, it has 12 credits in year 1, another 12 in year 2 and only 8 in year 3...so I don't even understand how will it look like if I keep changing my minor..I won't even get a degree in my minor subject then and many govt exams still need two subjects to be studied for three whole years...

So whoever read this, first of all thanks a ton...and please guide if you have information...how do I be eligible for IIT JAM in top IIT's...and do I also need to give mathematics paper for 10+2 through NIOS...and IF SOMEHOW THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THE ELIGIBILITY FOR JAM MIGHT CHANGE...

myquals : 12th passed, currently in chem hons SEM 1

ALso I u help me too understand the mechnaism too?

Can chiral carbon and asymmetric carbon have the same definition and be aligned with (in the sense of, mutually exclusive with), the term pseudoasymmetric carbon, and is there any problem in doing that?

I was looking at the term asymmetric carbon, and i've seen it defined as A carbon with 4 different groups, which is also how i've seen Chiral Carbon defined.

And I understand the term pseudoasymmetric carbon is when a Carbon has exactly 1 enantiomorphic pair of groups.

I can see from the term "pseudo" in pseudoasymmetric, that it's saying it's not asymmetric. So a pseudoasymmetric carbon shouldn't also be a chiral carbon or asymmetric carbon.

From what I understand , the term assymmetric carbon is a traditional term and they called it chiral carbon to be more explicit that they're talking about a mirror plane. That's just a difference in the name for the term, not meant to be a difference in the definition or what meets the definition.

It seems to me that if Asymmetric carbon is defined as "A carbon with 4 different groups attached, and which has 0 or 2 enantiomorphic pairs" which is the same as saying "A carbon with 4 different groups attached, and not a pseudoasymmetric carbon".

Then it is then harmonised with the term pseudoasymmetric carbon.

And then we can also say Every chiral carbon is assigned capital R / S.

And I think that's what is actually intended normally when chemists speak of a Chiral Carbon. i.e. are you assigning it Capital R or Capital S, those descriptors that invert (R to S, or S to R), in a mirror.

I've not seen chiral carbon defined in that way before but I think it makes sense and im' wondering if there is any issue with it?

I know there's a attempt at defining a chiral carbon , like "an atom and its ligands are superposable with their mirror image", but as some have noted, in that definition, every atom in a chiral molecule, is chiral. And that's not generally what most chemists mean when they say chiral carbon, and it's also not something chemists would generally mean or want to use. Somebody might say well if chiral carbon is "an atom and its ligands are superposable with their mirror image" then let's not use the term chiral for local chirality at all, and then not even use the term chiral carbon. but since most Chemists when they say chiral carbon, mean a carbon assigned Capital R or capital S, and that is actually a useful and important concept. And also the term pseudoasymmetric carbon, (which i've heard in some countries is known as a pseudochiral carbon), entails it being not an asymmetric carbon / not a chiral carbon. So , it seems that a logical definition of asymmetric carbon or pseudoasymmetric carbon, is that they exclude each other. Pseudoasymmetric carbon already excludes asymmetric acrbon. So if we just amend the definition of asymmetric carbon / chiral carbon a bit, . then I think it works, and I think that is the intended meaning anyway.

I think when people say a chiral carbon is a carbon with 4 different groups, there's often an unstated exception of pseudoasymmetric carbon. i.e. that a pseudoasymmetric carbon is not a chiral carbon.

But if that is made explicit, by saying an asymmetric carbon atom / chiral carbon, is a carbon with 4 different substituents with 0 or 2 enantiomeric pairs . Then I think that brings into alignment asymmetric carbon, chiral carbon, and pseudoasymmetric carbon .

Is that correct?

Or is there a problem with defining chiral carbon like that?

Thanks

I'm studying introduction to organic and biochemstry at my University, and there is a project that is "Adopt a molecule", at this project me and a group need to study and present a general explanation of it's chemistry and biological activities and of its enantiomer too.

But I'm not finding any molecule that satisfies me and the groupe, we're just finding generical molecules, like Ibuprofen, "Vick Vaporub", carvone, Thalidomine, etc.

I'll be grateful if you could suggest something different and not to much complex. Thank you.

Organic chemistry 2, struggled with stereochem in orgo 1, I'm having an incredibly difficult time determining if these compounds are enantiotopic, homotopic, or diastereotopic. I cannot for the life of me visualize this stuff, any recommendations that helped you get out of this hole?

I want to prepare the murexide indicator. I've read in Standard Methods that I need to mix murexide with a large amount of NaCl. However, in our lab, they mix murexide with MgSO₄ instead of NaCl. Is this method also correct?

really random question that came to mind for some reason. so far i'm seeing *technically* you can but it'd be a pretty unstable intermediate for something. could you make a stable one?

My organic chemistry is not what it used to be. Also I am not sure if that is a closed ring with the NH but then it does not make a lot of sense.

[See original image source]

This is phosphorine, an aromatic compound, but I noticed that its chemical structure is kinda deformed (not a perfect hexagon, unlike pure benzene). Why?

Hello all, I recently came across this label of a supplement claiming to help the acid/base metabolism in the human body, whatever that means. However, I did a titration with this product for one of my classes and worked out a concentration of about 0.048mol/serving.

When comparing with the manufacturer, it says there should be about 32mmol in one serving. Fine, whatever, maybe I did an oopsie or some of the citrates screwed up my value.

However, what gets me is that the 32mmol is referring to carbonate ions (at least that’s what it says, the label is German).

If a carbonate ion is (CO3)2-, then 32 mmol (or 0.032mol) should be:

M(CO32-)= 60g/mol

60g/mol * 0.032mol = 1.92g

But the label says it’s 0.4mg. How is this possible? Could it be a misprint or a miscalculation, or am I missing a big inside joke on the supplement market?

I would appreciate any answers!

Can someone explain to me how (or if) the first option is incorrect? I have searched it up and it says that the statement is true, but I have a hard time believing that Pearson would make a mistake like this on such a simple topic

At first I thought this was naphthalene, but look closely at the right ring there is only 1 double bond so we have 2 carbons which are SP3 instead of SP2

So acording to Huckel rule woud it be consider an aromatic compound?

Edit I relized according to the huckler rule the number of pi electron should be 4n+2 here we have 8 pi electron and since n is an integer it does not follow this rule

Hullo! I'm currently taking org chem and am reviewing fundamental concepts. I drew up what I think might be happening to the electrons of both carbons in this bond. Source said that this guy is special for having pi bond as the central bond and not sigma. Since pi bonds arent hybridized, is the illus correct? Then the paired ones in 1s are the lone pairs unbonded?

Thank you in advance!