Is My Assumption on Chemical Bonding in Hydrocarbons Correct?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the assumptions regarding chemical bonding in hydrocarbons, specifically methane and ethyne. It is noted that every single covalent bond around a carbon atom is a sigma bond, while in double and triple bonds, only one bond is a sigma bond and the others are pi bonds. The participant questions the necessity of having at least one sigma bond in multiple bonds, suggesting that two pi bonds may occur instead due to repulsion. The consensus confirms that if there are four bonds around a carbon atom, sp^3 hybrid orbitals are indeed involved. Overall, the assumptions are largely correct but may require clarification regarding the nature of multiple bonds.
Harmony
Messages
201
Reaction score
0
While studying chemical bonding for methane,ethyne etc., I have made the following assumption to help me to remember the sigma bond, pai bond, and hybrid orbitals.
1. Every single covalent bond around a carbon atom is a sigma bond.
2. Only one of the bond in double and triple covalent bond is a sigma bond. The others are pai bond.
3. If there are 4 sigma bond around a single carbon atom, sp^3 hybid orbitals are involved.

Is my assumption wrong? Or they are just suitable for certain hyddrocarbon?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually it is not necessarily true that there is atleast one sigma bond in a double or triple bond. This is because since the bonds repell each other, you are going to have two pi bonds rather than a sigma and a pi. I am not completely sure though.
-scott
 
Thats right, if there are 4 bonds from a carbon, they are sp3.
 
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