Does Placement of Valence Electrons in Lewis Dot Diagrams Matter?

AI Thread Summary
The placement of valence electrons in Lewis dot diagrams can vary, but it is important to represent them correctly for clarity. While different configurations may yield the same total number of electrons, symmetry and adherence to principles like Hund's rule can enhance understanding. For example, oxygen in H2O and CO2 has different electron arrangements due to their molecular shapes, affecting their bonding characteristics. Instructors typically prioritize the correct number of electrons over specific placements, although some symmetry is beneficial. Ultimately, while flexibility exists in electron placement, understanding the underlying principles is crucial.
supernova1203
Messages
209
Reaction score
0
So I am doing my lewis dot diagram work, does it matter where i put the valence electors?

for example oxygen has 6 valence electrons, i go with using the N E S W (North, east south, west)

I put 2 north, 2 east, 2 south but none of west(6 in total so far)

but the book puts them in the configuration of 2 north 2 east 1 south and 1 west

its the same isn't it? does it matter? I suppose the book is just trying to give the illusion of a full orbit(covering each direction)

I have the same answer as the book, just positioned differently, it shouldn't matter should it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kinda depends.
take for example the Oxygens in H2O and CO2. While they both have 4 valence electrons, they're placed differently. in CO2 they're 'north' and 'south' because of CO2's linear shape, but in H2O they're typically 'north east' and 'north west' because of H2O's bent shape.

specifically about the 6 electrons on oxygen, as an instructor I wouldn't care where you put them as long as you get the number right. (a little symmetry doesn't hurt, though)
 
a ground state oxygen atom has 2 pairs of electrons and 2 unpaired electrons, so it does matter.
see hund's rule
 
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
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
18K
Replies
2
Views
36K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Back
Top