In the mark scheme it says that the empirical formula is:
CH3CH=CHCH2CH3
which really confused be cos I would have thought that there would have been 4 Carbons due to the "buta", not 5.
Also, diene...does that mean there are 2 double bonds cos the name for the alkene functional group is -ene, so I would have thought that this was the case...obviously not and I fell stupid cos my exam's tomorrow and I dont know this!!...AARRGGHH!!!!
In the mark scheme it says that the empirical formula is:
CH3CH=CHCH2CH3
which really confused be cos I would have thought that there would have been 4 Carbons due to the "buta", not 5.
Also, diene...does that mean there are 2 double bonds cos the name for the alkene functional group is -ene, so I would have thought that this was the case...obviously not and I fell stupid cos my exam's tomorrow and I dont know this!!...AARRGGHH!!!!
Thanx in advance Xxx 8D
CH3CH=CHCH2CH3 That is just pent-2-ene. Are you sure you haven't read the markscheme wrong?
i bet its a mistake in the mark scheme. if you type the name of the molecule into google images then it will come up with a diagram of the molecule. hope that helps!
Hmm, it looks like that formula is just wrong, and it's structural rather than empirical. You're right about the 4 carbons and two double bonds - the correct structural formula should be CH2=CHCH=CH2 (and thus an empirical formula of C4H6).
Yeah I think the mark scheme may be wrong...I drew out what I thought it was before checking the mark scheme and I got what you're all getting...phew!!!!!
As an aside: Been a while since I've had to use IUPAC systematic nomenclature, but I;m fairly certain we were taught it was but-1,3-diene, rather than buta-1,3-diene, I'm not sure which is correct or if it matters?
Tbh, I could be remembering wrong, it was quite distracting when certain people in the class kept laughing at the word "butanal" because, and I quote, "It looks like butt anal LOL!"
As an aside: Been a while since I've had to use IUPAC systematic nomenclature, but I;m fairly certain we were taught it was but-1,3-diene, rather than buta-1,3-diene, I'm not sure which is correct or if it matters?
You are correct. But-1,3-diene is more correct than buta-1,3-diene, unless I've never heard of having the extra 'a' there.
Hmm, it looks like that formula is just wrong, and it's structural rather than empirical. You're right about the 4 carbons and two double bonds - the correct structural formula should be CH2=CHCH=CH2 (and thus an empirical formula of C4H6).
No, the empirical formula is the simplest possible ratio... in this case C2H3