What Is the Actual Bond Angle in SeCl2 According to VSEPR Theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MysticDude
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bond
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on predicting the bond angle in selenium dichloride (SeCl2) using VSEPR theory. The bond angle is influenced by the presence of lone pairs, which typically reduce the ideal tetrahedral angle of 109.5° by about 2° to 4°. Participants agree that the bond angle in SeCl2 is likely between 90° and 109°, leading to the conclusion that option c is the most accurate. The consensus is that lone pairs significantly affect bond angles in molecular geometry. Understanding these principles is essential for accurate predictions in molecular structure.
MysticDude
Gold Member
Messages
142
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Predict the actual bond angle in SeCl2 using the VSEPR theory.
a. more than 120°
b. between 109° and 120°
c. between 90° and 109°
d. less than 109°


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


So I tried to draw the Lewis Structure of the chemical and then the model of it. I also know that lone pairs made the bond angle smaller by about 2°.

I hope that this is the right structure:
[PLAIN]http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7538/pretest4num4.png

Since the bond angle of a tetrahedral molecule is 109.5°, I would think that it lowered bond angles would be around 90° to 109°.

Any help is appreciated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Any help? Please and thanks.
 
I hate to answer when I am only partially sure. Intuition tells me you are OK.
 
Thanks for the help Borek :D
 
yes you are correct. the lone pairs reduce the tetrahedral ideal angle of 109.5o between atoms by about two or four degrees, depending on the individual atoms bonded together. So generally you are correct to assume that D is right.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top