Shielding or principal quantum number predicts Covalent or Ionic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adf89812
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quantum Shielding
AI Thread Summary
HgCl2 is more covalent than CaCl2 due to the additional p and s orbital shells in Hg^2+, which affect electron shielding. The extra shells may shield the chlorines from the nucleus's attraction, influencing the bond characteristics. This leads to a situation where Hg^2+ valence electrons are more attracted to the chlorine electron cloud. The principal quantum number and shielding play crucial roles in determining whether a bond is more covalent or ionic. Understanding these factors can clarify the nature of bonding in different compounds.
adf89812
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary: Why is HgCl2 more covalent than CaCl2 via shielding?

Hg^2+ in HgCl_2 has more shells of p-orbitals and s-orbitals than Ca^2+ in CaCl2
- Do those extra p and s shells of Hg^2 in HgCl2 shield the two chlorines in HgCl2 from the effect of Hg^2+'s nucleus attraction, or leave the Hg^2+ valence electrons attracted to the chlorine electron cloud in HgCl2 because by the Bohr model the valence electrons of Hg are further apart from its nucleus and should be closer to the chlorine in HgCl2?
- How can shielding or principal quantum number of the cation explain whether some bond is more covalent or ionic?
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Chemistry How do we know ##BF_3## has Lewis structure but ##Al_2S_3## does not?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Electropositivity - 2nd opinion needed
Replies
1
Views
2K
Stability of Sulfides: Lewis Acid-Base Covalent Bonding
Replies
1
Views
2K
Quantum Numbers and Valence Electrons
Replies
1
Views
3K
What's the chemistry behind a semiconductor?
Replies
8
Views
2K
B Why don't solids always stick together?
Replies
5
Views
4K
B Quantum mechanical model of an atom
Replies
7
Views
1K
Clarification of forces involved in electron shielding
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Ionic bonding from a quantum mechanics point of view
Replies
1
Views
4K
A How do acceptor energy levels form in p-doped semiconductors?
Replies
2
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top