Dive straight into Destroyer? ? ?

[siba]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I don't have a solid foundation in Ochem (currently 15 on this section). Should I dive straight into Destroyer? Say if I have no idea how to solve a problem, do you think I can learn/improve by just looking for the solution and try to pick up concept from different problems?

 

[Deontologist]

I have same dilemma...!! I suck at organic..Is it recommended to dive straight into Destroyer.....??

 

[osimsDDS]

o for sure, take the plunge!!!! BUT, first memorize the road maps in the back thats how it worked for me...trust me my foundation for ochem was absolutely ZERO but after i memorized the road maps and went through ochem in destroyer once then i went through achiever and got 23, 23, 25 on ochem so trust me it will work ( i put about 12 hours worth of studying for destroyer ochem)

 

[license2kill]

PROBABLY NOT, destroyer is intense. You should probably start with something broad like KBB then work ur way up.

 

[Dmitry Malayev]

I would review some basics from a textbook before diving into destroyer. The OChem in Destroyer is very tough and will demoralize you if you don't know your stuff.

The best part about the Destroyer is the solutions, they help a lot. After reading them you tend to grasp the concept and understand what you are doing. You improve as you go along in Destroyer. But i would know some of the basics before going straight into Destroyer or for that matter any study book. Take out a textbook and some notes and review, is the best i can tell you.

 

[doc3232]

IMO, I can't imagine learning O-chem from even Kaplan. I would say get a college O-chem book and learn from that thick 1000+ page book. But that may be just me...

 

[winkipink]

i would wait til i've taken at least a semester or 2 quarters in ochem. thats usually what is mostly tested on. but if you have already, i'd do kaplan, then destroyer. kaplan is really good for ochem, has alot more explanations imo. there is one discrepancy i and a few others have found between destroyer and kaplan. Kaplan says branched hydrocarbons will have decreased mp and bp, but destroyer says branched will have higher mp, but lower bp. i think i trust destroyer more, but if anyone can settle this, please post!

 

[siba]

i would wait til i've taken at least a semester or 2 quarters in ochem. thats usually what is mostly tested on. but if you have already, i'd do kaplan, then destroyer. kaplan is really good for ochem, has alot more explanations imo. there is one discrepancy i and a few others have found between destroyer and kaplan. Kaplan says branched hydrocarbons will have decreased mp and bp, but destroyer says branched will have higher mp, but lower bp. i think i trust destroyer more, but if anyone can settle this, please post!

Thanks for sharing! So does anyone know the answer to the question??

 

[futuredent22]

I would agree with kaplan. It makes no sense for branching to increase melting point, which is what destroyer says. Branched molecules are not easy to pack into a tight structure the way straight-chain molecules would be.

 

[HoangDDS]

I would agree with kaplan. It makes no sense for branching to increase melting point, which is what destroyer says. Branched molecules are not easy to pack into a tight structure the way straight-chain molecules would be.

I agree. The better the molecules can packed, the tighter the fit, the more energy required to break the lattice and melt the compound.

 

[billythekid]

I think Destroyer is wrong as well. Good question.

 

[rdhdds1]

I would agree with kaplan. It makes no sense for branching to increase melting point, which is what destroyer says. Branched molecules are not easy to pack into a tight structure the way straight-chain molecules would be.

Branching decreases the melting point based on the branched substituents not being tightly held and easily removed with lower levels of heat compared to straight, unbranched chains.