Resonance structure of nitrous oxide

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on drawing and evaluating the resonance structures of nitrous oxide (N2O) based on provided bond lengths. The user has identified three potential resonance structures but seeks guidance on how to use bond length data to eliminate less probable structures. The importance of bond length in assessing resonance stability is emphasized, as shorter bonds typically indicate stronger, more stable structures. The conversation suggests referencing similar questions for additional insights. Ultimately, understanding bond lengths is crucial for determining the most accurate resonance structures for nitrous oxide.
semc
Messages
364
Reaction score
5
I was asked to draw the resonance structure of nitrous oxide and given some bond length. So i need to eliminate non-probable resonance structure for nitrous oxide. I was able to draw three structure but how do we use the bond length to liminate non-probable resonance structure for nitrous oxide?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
semc said:
I was asked to draw the resonance structure of nitrous oxide and given some bond length. So i need to eliminate non-probable resonance structure for nitrous oxide. I was able to draw three structure but how do we use the bond length to liminate non-probable resonance structure for nitrous oxide?

Which are the three structures that you have? Perhaps take a look at a similar question at http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=37405.0 ?
 
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