Describe chemical compounds as CHARGED, POLAR or NONPOLAR

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the distinction between charged, polar, and nonpolar chemical compounds. It emphasizes that all molecules can be categorized as either polar or nonpolar, with ionic compounds being a specific type of polar molecule that carries a charge. An example provided is the behavior of salt (NaCl) in water, illustrating how ionic compounds interact in a polar medium. The conversation also highlights the importance of understanding the nature of ionic bonds, which involve the combination of metals and non-metals. Overall, the key takeaway is that recognizing the charge and polarity of compounds is essential for understanding their interactions.
aero_zeppelin
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Ok, I thought the only two options in existence were Polar and Non-polar... and I'm being asked which ones are CHARGED? What does this mean?

Example: NH4+ (ammonium), NO3- (nitrate), N2, O2, H2O

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
... or maybe they mean if the molecule is polar or non-polar and to say if it has a charge (ionized)?
 
That is what they mean...

All molecules are intrinsically polar or non-polar,

Now certain ionic compounds (which are EXTREMELY polar hence given the name ionic btw) can become charged as well, think about how they behave in the presence of a polar medium

The best example is as follows:

Mixing salt (NaCl) with water (H20) what happens?

Which is Polar/Nonpolar? Which is Ionic also? What happens then if they are mixed... Suppose that you were mixing just water inside a (high temperature) liquid salt medium... How would it behave

Realize that Ionic means that you are mixing metals and non-metals together. (To understand why imagine what happens if you mix a halogen with an alkali metal)

If you answer those questions above, it will make a lot of sense what the answer to this test is.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top