Predicting molecular shape without drawing lewis structure

AI Thread Summary
Predicting the molecular shape of molecules without drawing Lewis structures can be challenging, especially for those preparing for standardized exams like the ACS. One suggested method involves determining the steric number by counting total available electrons and adjusting for bonded atoms, but this may not always be accurate due to the complexities of double and triple bonds. Experience plays a crucial role in quickly identifying molecular shapes, as some individuals develop a mental database of common shapes for reference. However, for reliable results, especially in exam settings, it's recommended to follow systematic approaches and write out structures to minimize mistakes. Practicing a detailed and methodical approach is essential for mastering molecular geometry, particularly with complex cases like transition metals.
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.
 
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top