The shape of Copper Tetraamine Complex

AI Thread Summary
The Copper Tetraamine Complex exhibits a square planar geometry rather than a tetrahedral shape due to the specific energy parameters and interactions of the central copper atom. While VSEPR Theory is typically used to predict molecular shapes, it falls short in this case, as it does not fully account for the complex's electronic structure. The size and nature of the ligands also play a significant role in determining the geometry of the complex. The arrangement is influenced by factors such as steric effects and ligand field stabilization. Understanding these interactions is crucial for accurately describing the shape of the Copper Tetraamine Complex.
Harmony
Messages
201
Reaction score
0
Why is Copper Tetraamine Complex a square plane? Shouldn't it be tetrahedral since there is only four bond pairs?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It has to do with several factors related to the atom itself and the energy parameters associated with the molecular energy levels. I don't have my inorganic text at the moment, are you trying to apply VSEPR?
 
Yes. I tried to apply the VSEPR Theory, but it seems that the theory is not sufficient to explain the shape of the complex. Does this have anything to do with the size of the ligand?
 
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

Electrical Circuits - Parallel vs. Series
Replies
14
Views
1K
Chemistry Why Does IF5 Exhibit a Square Pyramidal Shape Despite Exceeding the Octet Rule?
Replies
1
Views
3K
Identify Bottles: Lead Nitrate, HCl, Copper Sulfate, Sodium Carbonate
Replies
4
Views
2K
Organic chemistry hybridization and bond angles
Replies
1
Views
4K
Energy level Diagram relating to SP3 hybridization
Replies
2
Views
7K
Oxidation State & Shapes of Ni(CO)4
Replies
1
Views
3K
IR active vibrations and point groups
Replies
6
Views
2K
MHB Computation of bond angles and other angles in tetrahedral
Replies
2
Views
1K
Dipole-Dipole Attraction in Molecules: Analysis of BCl3, XeF4, AsH3, and SCl3
Replies
4
Views
7K
I Why does doping make resonating valence bonds (singlet pairs) mobile?
Replies
2
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top