Properties of C−C Bonds in<i>n</i>-Alkanes: Relevance to Cracking Mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The slight variations among the proton affinities and bond strengths of the C−C bonds in straight-chain n -alkanes have been determined to 1 kcal mol -1 accuracy for the first time, using computational quantum chemistry. Four computational methods (B3LYP, MP2, CCSD(T), and G2) were used to study n -alkanes (up to C 20 H 42 with B3LYP), including computations on the related alkyl radicals, carbenium ions, and carbonium ions. The proton affinities of the C−C bonds vary from 142 to over 166 kcal mol -1, are highest for the center C−C bond, and decrease monotonically toward the end bonds. Bond strength, unlike proton affinity, is very constant (88 kcal mol -1 ), except for the α and β bonds (89 and 87 kcal mol -1, respectively). For thermal cracking, the results suggest that the most favored initiation step is the breaking of the β bond of the alkane to create an ethyl radical. For Bronsted-acid-catalyzed cracking of straight-chain paraffins, if the initiation mechanism is via carbonium ions, then the results indicate that the central C−C bonds of n -alkanes will be most attractive to the Bronsted proton. However, for direct protolysis (Bronsted-mediated fission) of an n -alkane via a carbonium intermediate, the net exothermicities do not strongly discern among the C−C bonds. Trends in molecular geometry and infrared spectra features are also presented, and a signature IR band is predicted for carbonium ions that should aid in their identification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".