Does Sodium Chloride Lack Molecules Due to Ionic Bonds?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chemistry101
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Chemistry
AI Thread Summary
Sodium chloride (NaCl) is classified as an ionic compound, which means it does not form discrete molecules like covalent compounds do. Instead, NaCl exists in a crystal lattice structure where sodium and chloride ions are arranged in a repeating pattern, with each ion surrounded by oppositely charged ions. This arrangement leads to the absence of distinct molecules, as the composition can vary in size but maintains a fixed 1:1 ratio of sodium to chloride ions for electrical neutrality. The concept of a molecule is specific to covalent bonding, where atoms are bonded in defined units. Therefore, the lack of molecules in sodium chloride is due to its ionic bonding and crystal lattice formation.
Chemistry101
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
1. Although we have to write sodium chloride as NaCl, we realize that NaCl is an ionic compound and contains no molecule. Explain.


I kind of came up with an idea that sodium is a positive charge and chlorine is a negative charge. Is this the reason why they have no molecules? Is that what the question is asking?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The term molecule implies a collection of atoms that are covalently bonded together into a discrete unit with a defined composition (e.g. all water molecules have exactly 2 hydrogen atoms and exactly one oxygen atom). In contrast, ionic solids such as NaCl exist as a crystal lattice (see diagram on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_chloride). In the crystal, each chloride is surrounded by sodium ions and each sodium ion is surrounded by chloride ions. Since these crystals can vary in size, the crystals can have varying numbers of sodium and chloride ions; however, the ratio of sodium and chloride ions in the crystal is fixed and is always 1:1 (this is necessary for the crystal to be neutrally charged overall).
 
I asked for an easier interpretation not a copy and paste answer.
 
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