Water O-H Bond Length: Evidence & Measurement

zincshow
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
Not sure where this goes, but here goes:

Water O-H bond is usually thought of as 0.942 angstrom when looked at as H2O molecules.

This very nice site on water http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/evidnc.html suggests that x-ray data O···H peaks at 1.85 Å and 3.3 Å with no peak less then 1.85, suggesting there are not 0.942 H-O bond lengths in liquid water. Does this sound correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Intramolecular H-O bond lengths are approximately 0.9 - 1.0 Angstroms in liquid water at 25 C; intermolecular (hydrogen) bond lengths are much longer, quite possibly around 1.8 Angstroms as your source claims. Of course, all that changes for various phases at different temperatures. Crystal formation in ice should lead to H-O bond length changes to accommodate for hexagonal crystal packing, for example.
 
jthechemist said:
Intramolecular H-O bond lengths are approximately 0.9 - 1.0 Angstroms in liquid water at 25 C; intermolecular (hydrogen) bond lengths are much longer, quite possibly around 1.8 Angstroms as your source claims. Of course, all that changes for various phases at different temperatures. Crystal formation in ice should lead to H-O bond length changes to accommodate for hexagonal crystal packing, for example.

I agree, but from searching defraction data for liquid water it seems to agree with their statement:

"However the model gives H···H peaks at 2.35 Å, 3.9 Å and 4.6 Å with a small peak at 2.9 Å and O···H peaks at 1.85 Å and 3.3 Å with smaller peaks at 4.55 Å and 5.25 Å similar to published data [17, 35, 37]."

Which makes me wonder why do they not see any O...H peaks under 1 Angstrom? Why do people think there are "Intramolecular H-O bond lengths are approximately 0.9 - 1.0 Angstroms in liquid water at 25 C"?
 
Radial distribution functions are useful for studying surrounding structure; the intramolecular OH bonds are *always* there and thus do not contribute any key insight. Thus the peaks arising from intramolecular bonds are often removed. See point (c) on the website you referenced: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/evidnc.html#c
 
Thank you. My mistake.
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
8K
Back
Top