[chem]Lewis Structure-Expanded Valence Shell

  • Thread starter Thread starter Carolyn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Shell
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding Lewis structures, particularly for the molecule SO3, which has three resonance structures with one double bond between sulfur and each oxygen. The question arises about the possibility of forming double bonds between sulfur and all three oxygens to achieve zero formal charges, suggesting a more stable structure. However, the consensus indicates that resonance structures are preferred as they better satisfy the octet rule and account for formal charges. The conversation highlights the need for clarity on when to use expanded valence shells and resonance structures, as well as identifying exceptions to the octet rule. Understanding these concepts is essential for accurately drawing Lewis structures.
Carolyn
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
I am currently learning how to draw lewis structures and find it to be really confusing sometimes.

For example, for the molecule S03, the correct structure on the textbook is three resonance structures, each with one of the O's forming a double bond with the central atom S.

However, why can't we just put double bonds between S and all of the three O's? Then the formal charges for each atom wil be zero. Wouldn't be a more stable structure and therefore a perferable choice? Also since S is in the third period of the periodic table, so it can have expanded valence shells.

If anybody can provide some trick or method of knowing when to have expanded valence shells and when to have resonance structures, as well as how to identify other exceptions to the octet rule, I will be very grateful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
it's better that it fills its octet before making the charges be zero on a central atom. that's why there is resinance structures.
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
5K
Back
Top