How Do You Calculate the Dipole Moment of CO2 with a 120 Degree Bond Angle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter vaazu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dipole Moments
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the dipole moment of CO2 with a 120-degree bond angle, one must create vectors representing the bond dipoles based on the given bond lengths and charges. The bond length for CO is 1.1867 Å, with a charge of 1.1352 Debye for carbon and -0.5676 Debye for oxygen. Although CO2 typically has a linear structure with a 180-degree angle, the challenge lies in adjusting the calculations for a hypothetical 120-degree angle. The process involves vector addition of the dipole moments, which can be facilitated by using online resources for vector calculations. Ultimately, the dipole moment can be determined by combining the vectors appropriately.
vaazu
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


r-bond length (in anströms)
q-charge (in debyes)
CO2 r(CO)=1.1867 q(C)=1.1352 q(O)=-0.5676
angle between them is 120 deg


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I know I have to make vectors and then add them, but I don't know how to make the vectors. I know the angle in CO2 is 180, just need to find the dipole moment if the angle was 120.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/Class/vectors/u3l1b.html" site.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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