Cl-C-Cl vs H-C-H Bond Angles in CH4 & Dichloromethane

  • Thread starter Thread starter jnimagine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angles Bond
AI Thread Summary
In dichloromethane, the Cl-C-Cl bond angle is influenced by the presence of three lone pairs on chlorine, which creates greater repulsion compared to the H-C-H bond angle in methane, where hydrogen has no lone pairs. The bond angle for Cl-C-Cl is indeed larger than that of H-C-H due to this increased electron pair repulsion. Chlorine's larger atomic size compared to hydrogen also contributes to the differences in bond angles. Overall, the stronger repulsion from chlorine's lone pairs results in a larger Cl-C-Cl bond angle compared to the H-C-H bond angle in CH4. Understanding these factors is crucial for comparing molecular geometries.
jnimagine
Messages
176
Reaction score
0
How is the bond angle for Cl-C-Cl in dichloromethane different from H-C-H bond angle of CH4? Is it smaller??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is the size of Cl vs. H in your examples?
 
Chlorine has three free electron pairs, hydrogen has none. Because of the electon pairs chlorine atoms repell from each other more strongly so the Cl-C-Cl bond angle should be bigger than H-C-H. I am not sure of this, but it seemed logical to me.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Chemistry Valence Bond Theory: Energy of a system with H and Cl atoms
Replies
6
Views
3K
What Is the Maximum Wavelength to Break the Weakest Bond in AsClF42-?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Chemistry C-H bond enthelpy of halogenated hydrocarbons
Replies
2
Views
2K
What is the Average C-H Bond Energy in Methane?
Replies
4
Views
6K
What is the geometry of dichloromethane?
Replies
6
Views
10K
Chemistry Bond Angles in Trigonal Bipyramidal Molecules
Replies
1
Views
4K
Question about Calculating Bond Energies
Replies
4
Views
2K
Oxo acids, attraction between Y element and oxygen
Replies
2
Views
2K
Chemistry Determining the positive and negative poles of a molecule
Replies
6
Views
5K
Which have smallest bond angle? NH3 or N(CH3)3?
Replies
2
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top