Predicting molecular shape without drawing lewis structure

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Predicting molecular shape without drawing Lewis structures can be approached by determining the steric number through electron counting, but this method lacks accuracy due to the failure to account for double and triple bonds. Experienced chemists often rely on a mental database of common molecular shapes for quick comparisons. For standardized tests, it is advisable to adhere to systematic methods and write down structures to minimize errors. A systematic approach, especially for complex molecules like transition metals, is essential for accurate predictions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of steric number calculation
  • Familiarity with molecular geometry concepts
  • Knowledge of electron counting methods
  • Experience with Lewis structures and bonding types
NEXT STEPS
  • Research systematic methods for predicting molecular geometry
  • Study the VSEPR theory for molecular shape determination
  • Learn about the impact of double and triple bonds on molecular shape
  • Explore resources for building a mental database of common molecular shapes
USEFUL FOR

Chemistry students, educators, and professionals preparing for standardized exams or seeking to improve their understanding of molecular geometry and shape prediction techniques.

Immutef
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Is their a method for predicting the molecular shape of molecules without drawing the Lewis structure?

I am preparing for an ACS exam and would like to try to save some time on these problems. I think I could determine the steric number by counting the total electrons available, and subtracting the product of the number of bonded molecules x 8. The remaining electrons would be counted as lone pairs.

I don't think this would be accurate all the time because it does not account for double, triple bonds etc.

Is their "quick" way to predict molecular shape that is more reliable.

Thanks
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Simply put: yes, but with a good bit of experience which it sounds like you don't have (no offense intended, just a reality check). I have a sort of "database" of molecules with common shapes in my head which I can make quick comparisons to when I'm encountering a new molecule. That's usually my starting point.

For standardized tests, though, my advice is to do it by the book. Writing things down helps you avoid mistakes, which are incredibly easy to make on standardized tests.
 
DDTea said:
Simply put: yes, but with a good bit of experience which it sounds like you don't have (no offense intended, just a reality check). I have a sort of "database" of molecules with common shapes in my head which I can make quick comparisons to when I'm encountering a new molecule. That's usually my starting point.

For standardized tests, though, my advice is to do it by the book. Writing things down helps you avoid mistakes, which are incredibly easy to make on standardized tests.

I'm a first year student taking general chemistry 1
 
And I've completed my degree and molecular geometry still often surprises me unless I approach it in a systematic way. It can get interesting with transition metals especially.

There's a saying from the Marine corps: slow is smooth and smooth is fast. What it means is that when you're learning something, start slow and pay attention to detail. With time and practice, speed will come.
 
I came.across a headline and read some of the article, so I was curious. Scientists discover that gold is a 'reactive metal' by accidentally creating a new material in the lab https://www.earth.com/news/discovery-that-gold-is-reactive-metal-by-creating-gold-hydride-in-lab-experiment/ From SLAC - A SLAC team unexpectedly formed gold hydride in an experiment that could pave the way for studying materials under extreme conditions like those found inside certain planets and stars undergoing...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
44K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
27K