Ionic vs. Covalent Bonds: Understanding Electronegativity Differences

AI Thread Summary
Ionic bonds typically form when the electronegativity difference between two atoms exceeds 2.5, but exceptions exist, as seen in compounds like MgO and NaCl, which have lower differences. There is no strict boundary between ionic and covalent bonds; many bonds exhibit characteristics of both types. Electronegativity differences serve as a useful guideline for predicting bond types, but they are not definitive. Understanding the nuances of bonding requires recognizing the spectrum of ionic and covalent character in various compounds. This complexity highlights the importance of considering multiple factors in chemical bonding.
devanlevin
in chemistry, how do i know when there is an ionic bond and when a covalent bond, someone told me when the difference between two atoms electronegativity is more than 2.5 there is an ionic bond, but there are molecules with differences in its atoms electroegativity less than 2.5m such as MgO or NaCl
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no clear demarcation between the two. There usually exists some character of both types of bonding in any given bond. Electronegativity differences can be used as an ad hoc method to describe the type but it is http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtut/bonding/polcov.html"
 
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