The discussion revolves around the concept of hyperconjugation and whether it can be classified as a coordinate bond. Participants explore the nature of hyperconjugation in relation to carbonium ions of varying stability and the similarities and differences between hyperconjugation and coordinate bonding.
Participants do not appear to reach a consensus on whether hyperconjugation qualifies as a coordinate bond, with multiple competing views expressed regarding the definitions and characteristics of these interactions.
The discussion highlights the semantic nuances in defining chemical bonds and interactions, particularly the lack of clarity in distinguishing between hyperconjugation and coordinate bonding based on electron donation mechanisms.
I agree with TeethWhitener. I don't think a hyperconjugative interaction qualifies as a bond in the first place. But you likely learned in gen chem that a coordinate (or dative) covalent bond is a bond that was formed from a 2 e- interaction between a lewis acid and a lewis base. However, if you just look at a molecule by itself, e.g. CCl4, you can't say whether the bonds are dative or not. This molecule could be made from radicals or ions. Cl- + Cl3C+ --> CCl4 but Cl. + CCl3. -->Karan Punjabi said:Guys, a certain chemical phenomenon known as hyperconjugation in which carbonium ion which is tertiary or secondary or primary in nature then the pi bond formed for stabilizing effect can be defined as a co ordinate bond or not?