Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • >> I want to continue our discussion

  • of first order analysis and analysis of couple

  • in first order and your first order systems.

  • And, as I said, the good news is that even though very few

  • of the systems that we deal with are truly first order,

  • many of the systems we deal with can be analyzed

  • as if they were first order,

  • realizing that sometimes you will see some deviation.

  • So, today we're going to look at multi-plates and look at trying

  • to really understand them,

  • and to extract coupling constants from them.

  • And so, we've already talked about multi-plates

  • where you have all of the same type of coupling like a quartet

  • or a septet and now I want to go and talk about multi-plates

  • where we have coupling where you have different coupling

  • constants, you know, to different types of protons.

  • As I said, if you have different types of protons

  • but the coupling constants are the same,

  • so you have a proton that's coupled to a methane

  • on one side, and a methylene on the other side, and all three

  • of those coupling constants are the same, no big deal.

  • It's going to be a quartet.

  • You'll see it as a quartet, you can analyze it as a quartet,

  • you can call it a quartet, and that's great.

  • But, now we'll look at some first order coupling analysis

  • where we have different coupling constants.

  • And, I'll start with a simple example.

  • Remember last time we were talking

  • about typical coupling concepts and I said, well you know most

  • of your vicinal couplings, most of your three bond couplings,

  • are about seven hertz but, there's some that fall out of

  • that range, and I said one of the categories

  • that you have are alkenes.

  • So, let's take a moment to think about alkenes and we'll think

  • about tert-butyl, I guess technically you'd call this 3,

  • 3, dimethyl, 1 butane, so we'll talk

  • about tert-butyl ethylene here.

  • So, in alkenes your cist couplings are

  • on the order of about 10 hertz.

  • I think I gave you a range of numbers and I said if you want

  • to keep one number in your head,

  • 10 is a good number to keep in your head.

  • So, let's say we would expect about 10 hertz.

  • Trans couplings are typically very different

  • than cist couplings.

  • I gave you a range of numbers from about 14 to 18 and I said

  • if you want to keep one number in your head,

  • let's keep 17 hertz as a typical coupling for trans.

  • And, vicinal couplings are all over the map.

  • I said for SP3 a sort of normal value might be 14 hertz.

  • SP2 tends to be a lot smaller, just a couple of hertz,

  • so if you wanted to keep one number as an expectation,

  • I said zero to 2 hertz.

  • Let's say about 1 hertz.

  • And, let's take a look at how these residences,

  • we would expect in [inaudible].

  • So, HA is going to be split by HB and HC, and HC is going

  • to split with about a 17 hertz coupling constant,

  • and HB is going to split it

  • with about a 10 hertz coupling constant.

  • To put it another way, in the different molecules,

  • HA is going to see some molecules where HB

  • and HC are both spin-up.

  • Some molecules in which one is spin up and one is spin down.

  • Some in which the other is spin up and the other is spin down,

  • and some in which both are spin down.

  • Now, in the case of a simple triplet

  • where you have the same coupling constant, if one is spin up

  • and one is spin down, or the other is spin up

  • and their swapped, it doesn't make a difference.

  • But, if your coupling concepts are different, then you're going

  • to see different magnetic environments

  • for those 2 molecules, and the result is that you're going

  • to for HA, and indeed we will see for all the others

  • that a doublet of doublets were DD.

  • We always name our species by way

  • of the first coupling constant gives the first name.

  • The big coupling constant gives the first name,

  • and the small coupling constant gives the last name.

  • In this case of course it's moot

  • because its name is doublet of doublets.

  • But as we see of course when we get to triplet of doublets,

  • and doublet of triplets it's going to matter.

  • So, one way to conceptualize these split interactions is

  • as a splitting diagram.

  • And so we can say that HA is going to be split

  • with a big coupling of 17 hertz, and so I'll just remind us

  • that this is 17 hertz.

  • And each of those lines is going to be further split

  • with a coupling of 10 hertz,

  • and I'm trying my best here to be proportional.

  • And so we would expect, we would expect a pattern somewhat

  • like this, four lines with a Lorentzian line shape.

  • Like so. And if I call these lines, 1, 2, 3 and 4 and we see

  • such a pattern, we see a doublet of doublets,

  • our big J is always going to be 1 minus 3, and that's going

  • to be the same as 2 minus 4 within the limits

  • of experimental error, because there is experimental error

  • in peak positions because of things like digital resolution

  • which says although your NMR spectrum is depicted as a series

  • of smooth curves, each curve is actually composed of a series

  • of data points and the separation

  • of those data points depends on your sweep with,

  • and your acquisition time, typically you have about 30,000

  • to 40,000 about 32,000 to say 50,000 real data points divided

  • over the entire width of the spectrum.

  • So, if your spectrum width is 14 parts per million,

  • and your 500 megahertz, so your spectra width is 500 hertz per

  • PPM, your sweep width is 7,000 hertz,

  • and if you have a 30,000 point spectrum that means,

  • each of your points is going to be separated

  • by a few tenths of a hertz, right?

  • By 7,000 divided by the number of points,

  • by let's say 32,000 real points.

  • That would be called the 64K data set

  • because in the Fourier Transform you collect 64,000 real --

  • you collect 64,000 points in the time domain,

  • and when you do a Fourier Transform that converts you

  • to 32,000 real points in the frequency domain

  • and 32,000 imaginary points in the frequency domain.

  • So, that spectrum is going to have 7,000 divided

  • by 30,000 is what about a quarter,

  • about .25 or so hertz, right?

  • Yeah, about .25, .4 hertz digital resolution

  • which means your points are separated

  • by a few tenths of a hertz.

  • Now for that very reason,

  • when we report our spectral observations you don't want

  • to report your coupling constants to better than a tenth

  • of a hertz because by the time you're at a hundredth

  • of a hertz, your numbers are insignificant.

  • I mean think about it, your Lorentzian Line width is

  • on the order of a hertz due to the uncertainty principle

  • and errors and shimming.

  • It's usually about 1.2 hertz.

  • You have a digital resolution of about 1.2 hertz.

  • So, that means you can determine the peak position

  • to a couple of tenths of a hertz.

  • So, what I typically do

  • to get the best accuracy is I take the position 1

  • and position 3, and I subtract them, and I take position 2

  • and sub 4 and I subtract those, and then I average them.

  • And in this case here, let's say I get 17.0 hertz,

  • and I report this as a DD 17.0 10.0 hertz.

  • Small J, similarly is going to be 1 minus 2 and 3 minus four,

  • and I would take those and average them

  • and get about 10 hertz.

  • You will find on many of the homework problems

  • as you go along and we get to the more advanced part

  • of the course, I include a peak print out.

  • If you want on the PDF, you can simply highlight

  • that peak printout, paste it into excel, split your data

  • from using the text to columns command, and then simply

  • in your excel spreadsheet just take 1 minus 3 and 2 minus 4

  • and 1 minus 2 and 3 minus 4 and average them appropriately,

  • and get your coupling constant out without having to resort

  • to pencil and paper calculations.

  • All right, so this is AJ.

  • Let's take a look at what we'd expect for HB.

  • So, HB is going to be split by HA with a coupling constant

  • of 10 hertz and it's going to be split by HC

  • with a coupling constant of 1 hertz.

  • So, it too will be a doublet of doublets and I will try

  • to draw everything proportionally

  • on my black boards here.

  • And so here we have our 10 hertz,

  • and here we have our 1 hertz,

  • and we get a pattern that looks like so.

  • HC we'd also expect to be a doublet of doublets,

  • and here we'd expect it to be --

  • have coupling constants of about 17 hertz and 1 hertz,

  • so again I will draw my little splitting diagram.

  • And that would be the doublet of doublets that we'd observe.

  • So, how does that sound?

  • Does that make sense?

  • >> So, I have a question [inaudible].

  • >> Ah. Okay, the distance from 1 to 4.

  • So, look we've moved apart 17 hertz,

  • and then I've moved 5 hertz out here, and 5 hertz out here.

  • [ Inaudible Question ]

  • What?

  • [ Inaudible ]

  • Would be, I'm sorry 1.5 to 3.5?

  • >> Yeah, 15 hertz over the [inaudible].

  • >> From 1 to 4?

  • So, 1 to 4 is going to be 17 plus 10 hertz,

  • which is 27 hertz, and actually you've hit upon something that's

  • a super, super point.

  • The difference between the first line in a multi-plate

  • and the last line is the sum of all of the Js.

  • Now, by all of the Js I mean with all

  • of their multiplicities built in.

  • And, this is what came up when we were talking

  • about that problem in discussion section and we were trying

  • to figure out how many hertz the spectrometer was,

  • and I said well, let's assume you have a typical triplet.

  • Let's assume a typical coupling is 3 hertz.

  • Remember the problem,

  • the question was what was the field strength

  • of the spectrometer and we got 200 and something or 350,

  • and we have one peak that looked like this, and another peak

  • that was a sextet that looked like this.

  • And so one way to do this problem was

  • to measure this distance and say oh, that's about 7 hertz,

  • but you're measuring it with your ruler

  • and it's not so accurate.

  • So, another way to do this is to say all right,

  • so we'll measure this distance, that's going to be 14 hertz.

  • Why? Because a triplet is a proton that's split

  • by two 7 hertz couplings.

  • So, 2 times 7 is 14, and then I say well the way I did it

  • which got a little more accuracy was to look at the sextet.

  • And since I said all of the Js are about 7 hertz,

  • this distance here from outer line to outer line,

  • corresponds to the sum of the 5 Js,

  • all of which are the same that are coupling it.

  • So, this corresponds to 35 hertz.

  • And what's important about this then, is that the distance

  • between the outer lines becomes a check sum.

  • What do I mean?

  • I mean that if you have analyzed your multi-plate correctly,

  • and you understand it correctly, and you've all

  • of the Js correctly, then you can go ahead and add up all

  • of those J's, and of course if one of those Js is corresponding

  • to a triplet, you add it in twice, and that's going

  • to correspond to the distance between the first and the last.

  • And, if you haven't gotten it right, it won't come out right.

  • And what's also important is let's say a multi-plate is a

  • little bit broad, and this came up with somebody

  • in the [inaudible] research group, who's looking

  • at confirmations of oxocarbenium ions,

  • and couldn't exactly see the size of the multi-plate

  • but he darn well could see whether the multi-plate was

  • roughly 7 hertz wide, or whether the multi-plate was roughly 15

  • hertz wide.

  • And that was able to tell him whether his proton was axial,

  • or equatorial, on a cyclohexane type ring, on a pyran ring,

  • and hence the stereochemistry and the confirmation.

  • So, this is why this is extremely important.

  • So, thoughts or questions?

  • All right, I handed out before,

  • but I realize not everyone brings the paper.

  • I handed out before a two-sided thing, so if you had the handout

  • from last time that had the phenylalanine on it,

  • you don't need to grab a new one.

  • But, I decided to make extras

  • because I realize not everybody is prepared.

  • Actually, if we can sweep the extras

  • over to this side of the room now.

  • That'll take care of a lot of stuff.

  • All right, everyone have one or the other sort of copy?

  • So, let's go ahead and let's take a look,

  • so this is a real spectrum of 3, 3 dimethyl,

  • 1 butane that I pulled out of the SIAL website,

  • and then just using Illustrator, just expanded the multi-plates

  • and put them on top of a hertz scale.

  • So, based on this right now, we should very easily be able

  • to see which proton corresponds to which.

  • So, this multi-plate here has just expanded over here,

  • and further expanded on top of a hertz scale here.

  • These 2 multi-plates here and here are expanded onto here,

  • and then expanded onto 2 scales.

  • So, which one is this?

  • >> HA.

  • >> So, that's HA.

  • Which one is this?

  • >> HC.

  • >> HC, okay.

  • And this is then HB.

  • All right, let's take a moment to actually read off the scale,

  • yes read a ruler, think analog,

  • and see how our actual coupling constants compared

  • to the typical ones.

  • So, let's analyze the HA and figure

  • out what the 2 Js are really.

  • We'll do the same for HB and HC.

  • And I see, is it Ruben?

  • Yeah, I see Ruben is prepared,

  • as am I with my handy ruler from the bookstore.

  • It really is good to have a scientific ruler here for this.

  • All right, so who wants to tell me what you got

  • for the 2 Js and HA?

  • >> I got 18 and 11.

  • >> Sounds about right.

  • Okay, so HA is a DD with 18 and 11 hertz.

  • Here would be a good example

  • of where we probably couldn't report to more accurately

  • than nearest hertz because we simply don't have

  • the resolution.

  • If I were measuring this on an actual spectrometer

  • and I was able to read with accuracy or peak printout,

  • I would report for example this as 5.83 parenthesis DD,

  • J equals whatever I read with accuracy.

  • Here I can only say it would be like 18 and 11.0 hertz.

  • And, assuming the integral worked out,

  • I would write it as 1H.

  • And you would report -- so this is how you tabulate --

  • how you tabulate NMR data.

  • All right, what about HC?

  • Seventeen and 2, what did you get?

  • >> I got 18 and 2.

  • >> Eighteen and 2, 18 and 2, about 18 and 2.

  • It doesn't surprise me that the 2 coupling constants are the

  • same because coupling constants should be the same.

  • Now mind you, if I get different values for example, and again,

  • there's digital error, there's experimental error,

  • if I got 17.4 for 1, and 17.6 for the other,

  • I would report what I observe, the data that I would observe,

  • I would report for the one 17.4.

  • For the other, 17.6, and that's perfectly reasonable.

  • What about for this one?

  • >> Two and 11.

  • >> Two and 11, and we always report it

  • as the big coupling constant first,

  • and then the small coupling constant.

  • Thoughts or questions on this?

  • >> When you report the chemical shift, do you put delta in front

  • of it, or do you just say [inaudible].

  • >> These days, well if you're reporting a whole series,

  • so great question.

  • The question is do you report delta 5.83?

  • So, delta means chemical shift in PPM,

  • so yeah if I'm reporting an individual number,

  • I would probably report it.

  • If I'm tabulating data, these days what people typically do

  • in JOC is say chemical shifts are reported in hertz relative

  • with respected TMS or with respected solvent peaks.

  • So, people typically don't.

  • It's kind of falling out of fashion.

  • But, delta was used specifically;

  • remember I mentioned this obscure Tao scale from the 60's.

  • Delta was used specifically

  • to indicate it's on the delta scale.

  • Now the Tao scale is so much forgotten that people tend not

  • to put as much emphasis on using delta.

  • All right, try some more multi-plates.

  • And, what I'm going to do,

  • and I'll show you another thing that's useful in just a second.

  • But, what I'm going to do is give you a handout

  • that has some simulated multi-plates, and I'll show you

  • where I got them in just a second.

  • But we can analyze them.

  • So, the best way to really get an understanding

  • of something is to work through it.

  • And, we've already kind of beaten to death a doublet

  • of doublets, I'm going to skip that and go on.

  • But, now we have another pattern,

  • and how would we describe this pattern?

  • >> Triplet.

  • >> Triplet of doublets, and I want to come to this.

  • All right.

  • So, for the purposes of this class, we're always going

  • to name it as big coupling constant dictates the first

  • name, small coupling constant dictates the last name.

  • [ Inaudible Question ]

  • We're going to work through both of them and see the differences.

  • Now, the reason it is important to have agreement

  • on this nomenclature is that if we don't have agreement then you

  • will have different interpretations of the pattern

  • and in turn, how many couplings of different types you have.

  • And, when it comes to actually understanding stereo chemical

  • relationships, you will get it wrong.

  • Now, the only problem is there's a heck of a lot

  • of confusion in the literature.

  • I will make a case for this system of nomenclature.

  • This is what we're going to use in the class.

  • I can show you at least one example where a different system

  • of nomenclature is used.

  • I can also show you an article that analyzes everything

  • in terms of doublet of doublet of doublets.

  • And for example, we call this D, D,

  • D with the same J. I take issue with that

  • because people invariably erroneously extract coupling

  • constants by that method and get meaningless numbers.

  • For example, they will measure one distance and call it one J

  • and another distance and call it the other J. So,

  • they'll measure 7.4 and 7.0

  • and say those are different Js and they're not.

  • It's simply the limits of digital resolution

  • and experimental error.

  • So, for the purposes of this class, and for the purposes

  • of what makes sense, we will always follow this nomenclature.

  • All right, so let's take a look at why we know

  • that our big coupling constant is --

  • I'm sorry, doublet of triplets; DT.

  • All right, now we're on the same page.

  • So, a doublet of triplets can be thought

  • of as a pair of triplets.

  • All right, so, we split with a big J, into a doublet.

  • And then we split with a small J into a triplet.

  • Now, I'll tell you a secret, for absolutely every multi-plate

  • out there, for every, every, every multi-plate

  • out there the smallest J is the difference between the first

  • and second line and the last and next to last line, every, every,

  • multi-plate and you can work yourself --

  • work your way through and convince yourself.

  • So, if we call these peaks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and we look at them

  • in a peak print out, and I just number them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,

  • now I have a caveat for you.

  • I've simulated this and my simulation happens

  • to run from low to high PPM.

  • Typically when you see a real spectrum it's going

  • to run from high to low.

  • So, typically 1 would be at the top, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

  • Okay, so small J is always going to be the first and the second

  • or the last and the next to last.

  • This is simulated data, so the numbers accord exactly.

  • But, if I were dealing with real data,

  • what I would do is take and average this.

  • So, for example we have that 459, so this is a column

  • for hertz, this is a column for PPM, that's the height,

  • that's what you'll see in the typical printout;

  • 459.57 minus 455.30 that number happens to be 10 -- 4.27.

  • And because this data is synthetic,

  • because it is simulated, I take the last two and I find

  • that it is exactly the same number for 444.70 minus 440.43

  • and not surprisingly because it is simulated,

  • it is the exact same number.

  • So, within reporting to tenths of a hertz, this is 4.3.

  • With real data, I would take the two and average them.

  • All right, for a doublet of triplets, the distance

  • between the two tall lines, between lines 2

  • and 5 is always going to be your big J.

  • Depending on the ratio of the small J to the big J,

  • these two lines may swap, so your big J may be 1 to 4

  • or it may be 1 to 3 if they swap,

  • so if you know exactly what it is, you can take that.

  • But, you can always be safe taking 2 to 5.

  • You can always be safe taking the two biggies.

  • So, here I get that it's 455.30 minus 444.70 and that's 10.6.

  • So, if I was reporting this, I would report the data

  • in the order big J, small J, 10.6, 4.3 hertz.

  • Yeah?

  • >> If those [inaudible] just

  • by randomly overlapping [inaudible] would it still be

  • considered a doublet?

  • >> It would still be considered a doublet of triplets,

  • and I can show you, we can do that pattern in a second.

  • All right, so what I want us to do is work through

  • and do a splitting diagram for this,

  • and I have this graph paper here and we'll do it,

  • just for the sake of ease we'll do it as one box is a hertz,

  • and what I'll do is a DT of 10

  • and 4 hertz, just to make it easy.

  • So, if I do my splitting diagram, I go ahead

  • and I'm going to split out into 10 for the doublets,

  • so I'm going to go 5 each way.

  • So, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

  • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, this happens to be 8 boxes

  • to the inch graph paper.

  • And then if I continue my splitting diagram,

  • I'm going to split into a triplet with 4 hertz,

  • and so I'm going to go out each way 4,

  • and have a line in the center.

  • So, I can go out, 1, 2, 3, 4, out 1, 2, 3,

  • 4 and then on this one I can go out 1, 2, 3.

  • >> Is it supposed to be 2?

  • >> No. Do I go 2 and 2?

  • Nope, because remember a triplet is a split with two

  • for a hertz coupling constant.

  • So, a triplet is identical to a doublet

  • of doublets with 4 hertz.

  • So, we're doing a little short-cut here.

  • Okay, so what I'm saying is a triplet with 4 hertz, is this

  • and that's the same as a --

  • that's the same as a DD with 2 identical coupling constants.

  • And so, we can take a look at that and see what we get.

  • So, if I go out like this,

  • I'll try to make it fit as exactly on scale.

  • I'm not drawing on graph paper.

  • And, if this is 4, and now we split 4 and 4 we go line

  • with the intensity of 1, line with intensity of 2,

  • line with intensity of 1.

  • And so, a triplet, you're going

  • to with a 4 hertz coupling constant is going to move

  • out 4 hertz in each direction.

  • And that makes sense because remember I said

  • that if the total J is 8 hertz,

  • because you have two 4 hertz couplings,

  • then those outer 2 lines are 8 hertz apart.

  • That make sense?

  • And so I can graph this, and I'll graph it

  • with the relative intensities of 1 to 2, to 1, and 1, to 2, to 1.

  • >> What did you say not to do earlier [inaudible]?

  • >> Not to go out 2 hertz on each side.

  • >> Two hertz oh, 2 okay,

  • >> So, I said we're going out 4 hertz

  • because the triplet is 4 and 4.

  • It's two 4 hertz coupling constants.

  • A triplet with 4 hertz coupling is conceptually the same as a DD

  • with -- it is indistinguishable from a DD

  • with 4 hertz and 4 hertz.

  • So, so what?

  • I'm sorry.

  • >> Can we just draw that [inaudible]?

  • >> If you want you can draw this.

  • But, still name this as a triplet.

  • >> Oh, okay.

  • I think I just misunderstood what they were saying.

  • >> All right, so let us compare this now to the triplet

  • of doublets coupling pattern.

  • So, of course a triplet of doublets is something

  • where you have 1 big -- you have 2 big couplings

  • and one small coupling.

  • And you can think of it --

  • so this is a small triplet of doublets and you can think

  • of this as a -- you can think of it as 3 doublets,

  • or a trio of doublets.

  • And so, your big J is going to be 1 minus --

  • and again, we can think of this 4, 5, 6, 4, 5,

  • 6 and our big J is going to be 1 minus 3 which is the same

  • as 2 minus 4 which is the same as 3 minus 5

  • which is the same as 4 minus 6.

  • So, this spacing, this spacing, this spacing,

  • and this spacing all correspond to the triplet.

  • And, if I want the best thing would be to take

  • and average them for maximum amount of accuracy.

  • In this case with simulated data I could just say all right,

  • that's equal to 464.43 minus 453.5 -- point 26.

  • And that number happens to be 11.17.

  • Small J and as I said for any multi-plate,

  • you can always take first minus second,

  • or next to the last minus next to the last -- minus last.

  • The small j is 1 minus 2, 3 minus 4, 5 minus 6,

  • if I want to since this is simulated data,

  • I'll just take 464.43 minus 457.92

  • and I get that that's 6.5.

  • So, I would report this as 11.2, 6.5 hertz.

  • >> So, we would only need one decimal point

  • because that's the maximum resolution.

  • >> That's the maximum resolution of the instrument.

  • And in carbon NMR, where your sweep width is now

  • about 20 times as large,

  • typically your digital resolution is on the order

  • of 1 hertz because you might have 32,000 data points but,

  • your sweep width now might be for example, two 20,000 hertz,

  • so your digital resolution is about 1 hertz.

  • So, typically people report Js and the carbon

  • to just the nearest hertz.

  • All right, so let's go ahead

  • and we'll simulate this as a TD 11-6.

  • And so, I will make my triplet, and I will go down,

  • and I will go out 11, and I'll go 1, 2, 3 and out 11,

  • and then I'll split each of those into 6 hertz doublets.

  • So, I go out 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 and out 1, 2, 3, 1, 2,

  • 3 and I get line, line, line, line, line, line.

  • [ Inaudible Question ]

  • What's that?

  • >> They'd look -- the higher resolution [inaudible] make a

  • straight line.

  • >> Well, you know the digital resolution, great question.

  • So, the digital resolution

  • of an 800 megahertz spectrometer isn't any higher

  • than the digital resolution of a 300 megahertz spectrometer,

  • which means your line width isn't any sharper.

  • So, since no matter whether you measure on a big spectrometer

  • or a little spectrometer,

  • this distance is still exactly the same.

  • The separation of the lines in hertz is the same,

  • it'll look pretty similar.

  • It's just if you have tinting,

  • due to non first order effects, AB type of effect.

  • You'll see less of a difference.

  • Now, I want to show you 2 other things, this one here,

  • can anybody name it real quickly?

  • Do you see the pattern; it's a doublet of triplets.

  • It's a pair of triplets, and if you go ahead

  • and you take this line to this line, 2 to 5 is your big J,

  • 1 to 2 and 3 to 4 is your small J,

  • and that'll give you your name of it.

  • This one happens to be 7.8 and 5.9 hertz.

  • All right, I want to show you a couple of tools and then I want

  • to show you 1 last pattern.

  • All right, so this is -- this is what generated all these peaks,

  • this is downloadable on the website, and so for example

  • if I wanted to make a doublet of triplets with 10.6

  • and 4.3 what I'd do is simply enter 10.6, and of course

  • since we have 2 couplings of 4.3 making up a triplet,

  • I simply enter 4.3 twice, and there's the pattern we just saw.

  • This just simulates the line width,

  • if the lines are a little fatter, or a little thinner,

  • that gives you your Lorentzian Line shape,

  • the one that I call line width.

  • The one that we just saw which was 7.8 and 5.9is that one?

  • And the one that we saw before that, which was your triplets

  • of doublets with 11.2 and 6.5, is that one?

  • The same type of tool exists in Chem-Doodle, so I can go ahead

  • and simulate a system for example with 11.2 --

  • oh, 2 spins and 6.5, and there are even little convenient --

  • convenient slider tools that can take us into our doublet

  • of triplets we just saw.

  • All right, last thing I want to show you

  • as this will prepare you to tackle just

  • about anything is this pattern over here.

  • Here we have 3 distinct coupling constants.

  • So, this pattern is a -- let me grab the right sheet here,

  • actually which was the next one on your page?

  • Was it this one?

  • Or was it this one.

  • All right so, I will grab this -- no.

  • it was the other one, all right,

  • so I will grab this one and, -- oh -- that is.

  • Wait, you have 2 of the other?

  • All right, so all right, we will do this one here

  • which is the last one.

  • We are split with 3 distinct coupling constants,

  • so it is a doublet of doublet of doublets.

  • And if we think about our lines here, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,

  • remember normally you'd number from the top.

  • All right, we name it big J, medium J,

  • small J. Small J is always the first minus the second,

  • which is 1 minus 2, or the last and the next

  • to the last which is 7 to 8.

  • That's 8.19, I won't do the math.

  • The medium J is always for a doublet of doublet of doublets,

  • 1 minus 3 or 6 -- and 6 minus 8 always, always,

  • always for a doublet of doublets.

  • That's 10.76, the large J is either 1 minus 4 or 1 minus 5

  • and in turn either r5 minus 8 or 4 minus 8.

  • Rather than deal with those vagaries remember what I said

  • before, that 1 minus 8 is always the sum of the Js and any

  • if you have like a triplet in there you'd use 2 of those Js.

  • So, that is always J small, plus J medium, plus J large.

  • And in this case, that is 31.91 which means J large is equal

  • to 31.91 minus 10.76 minus 8.19 is equal to 12.96.

  • And so if I report this, it's 13.0, 10.8, and 8.2

  • and I will leave it to you to work through the splitting tree.

  • You will get plenty of this in a handout that I've assigned

  • for next week, although given where we're out you can do

  • for this homework set.

  • I'd encourage you to at least work through it,

  • it's a work book hand out that goes

  • with today's lecture so, anyway.

  • Okay, that's what I think I want to say right now,

  • you have all the tools to tackle complex first order

  • and your first order multi-plates. ------------------------------3d155e5aaa20--

>> I want to continue our discussion

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it