3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHello again ,just to clarify what I have looked up, pi bonding, is it called pi bonding because the bond is infinite like the pi calculation?.
So once the Atoms have bonded there is no reverse process?.
February 8th, 2013, 12:28 AM
Hello again ,just to clarify what I have looked up, pi bonding, is it called pi bonding because the bond is infinite like the pi calculation?.
So once the Atoms have bonded there is no reverse process?.
They are called pi bonds because they are formed by electrons in p orbitals.
Bonds formed by electrons in s orbitals are called sigma bonds.
Thank you, I do understand the S and P orbitals, but in one of my searches it mentions infinite bonds, So pi bonding is just simply when any other Atom bonds to the P orbital, not to hard to understand, and it does seem obvious the sigma bond as to be first or else there would be no P orbital of electrons. Ok, thank you, new question- In the different formations of Pi bonding, i.e The hexagon, the Chair, the boat as one diagram shows, are these arbitary shapes or actual shapes?Originally Posted by tk421
Let me google that for you
I'm not sure what you mean by arbitrary or actual shapes. These are the shapes that some molecule have. Normally because that configuration minimizes energy. (Which is the explanation for pretty much everything, in the end!)
Chair conformations are visual representations of energy among molecules. Certain structures are higher energy and less likely to exist or be observable (gauche conformations, for instance). This can all change based upon molecular rotation around certain bonds. That means new methods of drawing molecules besides just carbon chains and sawhorses. You have to learn Newman projections and how to draw 3 dimensional conformations.
Also, pi bonding is NOT just when some molecule binds to the pi orbital. You're trying to say you understand it because you have dumbed it down to a level where it is no longer accurate. So, driving a car is just when your foot hits the gas, right?
You're getting into some advanced and organic chemistry. This is something even the majority of chemistry majors do not grasp easily. It's so complex and filled with so many nuances that I spend 2 hours a week with very intelligent kids making them build structures with friggin' balls and sticks just so they can get a C on their test.
So, bottom line, you do NOT get it and you're only kidding yourself if you believe you do.
If you want to learn this stuff, great. If you want to spout out something ignorant and say, "Hey, that's easy to understand" please stop it. You have no idea how many hours of my life were sunk into chemistry in order to grasp some of these concepts. I've spent years learning and teaching these things and I still struggle with it on occasion.
Yep, I studied physical chemistry for several years. Twice. And I still struggled with it.
I read through my post and it comes off way too frustrated. I won't delete it because it is actually how I feel right now (I just got back from orgo recitation, actually). If theorist was in my class, I'd probably have a stroke.
Anyways, sorry for the attitude.
Nope.
It was spot on and fully deserved.
That's why I've stopped responding to most of theorist's posts.
(That and the fact that he won't answer my questions).
I always try to keep my calm, but I'm wound up from trying to teach Newman structures to kids who NEED to know it, but would rather text through class.
I apologized because I don't ever want to discourage learning, but I'm pretty sure this isn't about learning anymore. I'm not sure what it is, but the fact that it's migrated into my favorite sub-forum is irritating.
That's why I didn't go into formal teaching.
Engineering apprentices aren't a protected species and it's okay to bounce their faces off a computer monitor - apparently that sort of thing is frowned upon in schools.
I don't think I could ever be a REAL teacher. Post-grads and anyone involved in my university's postgrad research has to teach low level labs or recitations.That's why I didn't go into formal teaching.
Engineering apprentices aren't a protected species and it's okay to bounce their faces off a computer monitor - apparently that sort of thing is frowned upon in schools.
I should be clear that I have considered a Ph.D. at some point, but I don't have one now. I'm NOT a professor. Those guys are smarter/crazier than me.
Thank you flick, I am not claiming I have learnt enough to consider myself to be qualified in any manner. I have the basic concept of Chemistry.
I do know there is more to it than just pushing the gas pedal, but I do understand it , just not in complete detail , but I will, as no matter what I study ,I be all that I can be.
I can see them kids putting them balls together now.
I will quote something from memory, and lets see how close my quote is to the fact. I do have this bookmarked but will not cheat and look or else I have learnt nothing.
Carbon -1s,2s,1p electron layers, a total of six electrons, 2 electrons per layer
Hydrogen- 1s electron layers, 2 electrons maybe one electron can't quite remember.
Pi bonding - Energy needed i.e heat
The Carbon electrons excite, 2s borrows an electron to the P layers making an explained tripod shape
This creates a bigger area of electron shell.
The Hydrogen electrons inter twine with the carbon electrons on the P levels creating different Molecule, i.e benzene
Am I far off with that thought how it works?
I like to get the basic concept, then to start to study the subject in more depth. I am not trying to run before I can walk, but it is nice to see what is at the finishing line.
You say this.
But then you say this. You need to start at the VERY beginning.
Carbon, like all atoms, has electons arranged in shells. Carbon's electron configuration is 1s22s22p2. That means it has a core shell consisting of 1 s orbital and 2 electrons. It has a valence shell consisting of 1 s orbital with 2 electrons and 2 p orbitals with 2 electrons (1 each due to Hund's rule).
There aren't 'layers' of electrons, there are shells. Getting the vocab right is step one in conversing about the topic.
None of this is explained in a manner that conveys knowledge of the topic. It's like you're just converting Wikipedia into your own words. You also can't explain atomic structure and bonding in 6 or 7 sentences. You have to learn the rules first (Aufbau principle, Pauli exclusion, Hund's rules, etc.) and the vocab before you can even begin to visualize how this process works. It took me years of classes, it's just not possible for you to learn it on a science forum and wiki. You need a better foundation than what you're getting here.
If I may suggest something besides classes; Khan Academy. His videos are exceptional and free. They will give you so much more than you can get here (though not as much as schooling).
Yes I do see my explanation to be short, but in a nut shell, this is how I see it. And I will look up your suggestions. The Khan Academy videos, I have already been viewing, that is why I know what the chair shape is and can visualize how it works.You say this.
But then you say this. You need to start at the VERY beginning.
Carbon, like all atoms, has electons arranged in shells. Carbon's electron configuration is 1s22s22p2. That means it has a core shell consisting of 1 s orbital and 2 electrons. It has a valence shell consisting of 1 s orbital with 2 electrons and 2 p orbitals with 2 electrons (1 each due to Hund's rule).
There aren't 'layers' of electrons, there are shells. Getting the vocab right is step one in conversing about the topic.
None of this is explained in a manner that conveys knowledge of the topic. It's like you're just converting Wikipedia into your own words. You also can't explain atomic structure and bonding in 6 or 7 sentences. You have to learn the rules first (Aufbau principle, Pauli exclusion, Hund's rules, etc.) and the vocab before you can even begin to visualize how this process works. It took me years of classes, it's just not possible for you to learn it on a science forum and wiki. You need a better foundation than what you're getting here.
If I may suggest something besides classes; Khan Academy. His videos are exceptional and free. They will give you so much more than you can get here (though not as much as schooling).
Some of my previous questions was based on some of my misunderstanding of what he was saying. But some of your answers have answered this for me.
I am cross referencing between wiki, youtube videos, Khan and on here.
At the moment I am still understanding the basics to each individual topic.
And I have learnt quite a lot.
You and I aren't clever enough to offer our personal view of how chemistry works. It works the way it works and if you don't accept it in that manner, you won't understand it properly. Some things just aren't up to interpretation.
So in chemistry, am I right in thinking the 1s layer always stay the same, and the proton and neutron do not join from the joining particle. Electrons just cross each others orbital at the 2p layers?
Doe's the D orbital, then form from this as the next orbital layer? and the proton and neutrons still stay apart.
It is (nearly) always the outer electrons that are involved in bonding. In hydrogen, this will be the 1s shell.
But, certainly it is only the electrons. The protons and neutrons do not have a role in bonding.
No. Some molecules have the 1s layer as their valence shell. Others use excited 1s electrons for binding as well.
Protons and neutrons have nothing to do with binding.
They don't 'cross'. They either share electrons in a covalent state or donate/accept them in an ionic state. Metallic non-organic bonding is a little more complicated.
The d orbital is next in the sense of 3d comes after 4s, but it comes before 4p when you're populating orbitals.
Still have nothing to do with bonding.
Thank you Flick,
Ionic state, these are the ones that emit energy, are a positive?
Do we use both neutral and positive state in chemistry?
They do not "emit energy". There are both positive and negative ions, if that is what you mean.
Thank you strange, that is what I meant, negative charge and positive charge is that correct and better wording?.They do not "emit energy". There are both positive and negative ions, if that is what you mean.
if i remember correctly -1 electron from equal amount of protons gives a positive?
or is there no charge?
And this inorganic chemistry looks really complicated, but as a basic thought and dumb down a bit, do metals generally have more Electrons and more orbital layers?
Electrons are negatively charged, so if an element has 1 fewer electron than protons then yes, it would have a +1 charge.
Metals do not have "more" electrons than anything except the elements preceding them on the periodic table. Metallic bonding does take d orbitals into account, but I would focus more on understanding the basics of atomic configurations and orbital population before moving on to metallic bonding. The periodic table contains more information than I think most people realize. It isn't just a conglomeration of elements. It lays them out in many different patterns, all of which fit impressively into a single table.
Thank you Flick, and yes I am not planning on looking too deep into metallic bonding at this stage, you are correct, I do need to learn the periodic table and try to memorize each elements first, and the more fundamentals of Atom configurations first.
Nothing to do with crust then is it
???????????
theorist: I made a small joke, a play on words, "pi" and "Pie" would sound the same. "Pie" however involves crust and a filling, of perhaps meat, or in the US more likely fruit.
Some parts of this country (litte piddly towns like New York) also refer to pizzas as pies. Totally on topic.
| « Getting a seed crystal big enough to tie a string around | Help for the Equilibrium Constant from a Titration » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
