Carbon-Silver-Carbon Angle in [Ag(CN)2]-

  • Thread starter Thread starter elitewarr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angle
AI Thread Summary
The carbon-silver-carbon angle in the complex ion [Ag(CN)2]- is 180 degrees, indicating a linear geometry. This linearity arises because the dicyanides, such as [M(CN)2]−, exhibit a linear arrangement due to the nature of the bonding. Although the complex involves ionic interactions, the bonds between the cyanide ligands and the silver ion are covalent. Understanding the hybridization and geometry of cyanide ligands helps clarify this structure. The discussion emphasizes the distinction between ionic and covalent bonding in coordination complexes.
elitewarr
Messages
62
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


What is the carbon-silver-carbon angle in the complex ion [Ag(CN)2]-??


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


The answer is 180 degrees why? I thought that complex ion is a ionic compound? If so, how would the shape be like? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello,
please have a look at 'cyanide' and 'p orbital' for details..on wiki
hopefully you will valuable information.
 
Oh...
"the dicyanides [M(CN)2]− (M = Cu, Ag, Au), which are linear in geometry." from wiki
But why? M is the ligand and both CN- are bonded with M. So the ionic bond in between them is at 180 degrees?
 
The bond between the CN- ions and the Ag+ ion is not ionic, but covalent. The complex ion [Ag(CN)2]- is a coordination complex.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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