Chemistry- electronegativity and bonding

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the boiling points of hydrogen halides (HI, HCl, HBr, HF) and their relationship to molecular size and electronegativity. Despite expectations that smaller molecules would have higher boiling points, the data shows that HF has a significantly higher boiling point than the others. This anomaly is attributed to strong hydrogen bonding in HF, which outweighs the effects of molecular size and electronegativity. The participants suggest that boiling points result from a complex interplay of factors, including electronegativity, molecular mass, and hydrogen bonding. Ultimately, the relationship between these properties is not straightforward and requires a nuanced understanding of intermolecular forces.
Dell
Messages
555
Reaction score
0
the temperature for the following to reach a pressure of 100mmHg is as follows(celcius))

HI -> -72.1
HCl -> -114
HBr -> -97.7
HF -> -28.2

how can this be? since they are all combinations of H and an element of the last column before the noble gas surely the smaller the size of the molecule, the higher the temperature will be? since they are all a combination of H and an atom whose radius goes R=(F<Cl<Br<I) so the electronegativity goes (F>Cl>Br>I). surely the temp should go with the electronegativity??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It might be a combination of electronegativity, mass, hydrogen bonding, size, etc...
 
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