VSEPR t-shaped geometry vs trig. planar

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the molecular geometry of a molecule with three bonding pairs and two lone pairs, specifically why it adopts a t-shaped configuration instead of a trigonal planar shape. Participants explore concepts related to VSEPR theory, hybridization, and the implications of lone pair positioning in different molecular geometries.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about why a t-shape is preferred over a trigonal planar shape, questioning the role of lone pair repulsion compared to bonding pair interactions.
  • Another participant suggests that hybridization might play a role in understanding the geometry, specifically referring to trigonal bipyramidal arrangements.
  • There is a query about why lone pairs occupy equatorial positions in trigonal bipyramidal geometries but axial positions in octahedral geometries, indicating perceived inconsistencies in the behavior of lone pairs.
  • A participant references a video that discusses minimizing 90-degree angles between lone pairs and bonding pairs as a potential explanation for the t-shape preference.
  • One participant attempts to reconcile the explanation by considering the bond angles and interactions in both geometries, noting that the angles in the t-shape may be more favorable than those in a trigonal planar arrangement.
  • Another participant provides a detailed breakdown of interactions in both t-shaped and trigonal planar geometries, arguing that the t-shape is energetically more stable due to fewer 90-degree interactions between lone and bonding pairs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the reasons behind the geometrical preferences, with multiple competing views and interpretations of the underlying principles remaining present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the influence of bond angles and lone pair interactions, and there are references to specific geometrical configurations without resolving the implications of these observations.

Puchinita5
Messages
178
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement




i'm confused as to why a molecule with 3 bonding pairs and 2 lone pairs takes on a t-shape rather than a trigonal planar shape.


My notes say that this is because in a t-shape, there are less 90 degree angles between the lone pairs and the bonding pairs than in a trigonal planar shape. However, i thought that the repulsion between lone pairs was greater than repulsion between lone-bonding pairs, so i would have expected the lone pair electrons would want to get as far away from each other more so than they would want to get away from the bonding electrons, and in trigonal planar they are as far away as possible from each other.




Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is a really good question that I can't answer but I hope someone can. Maybe it has to do with hybridization?

By trigonal planar I'm assuming you mean that the molecule has trigonal bipyramidal geometry but places the lone pairs at 180 from each other?
 
yes that is what i meant. I basically want to know why the lone pairs go to the equatorial positions in a trigonal bipyramidal shaped molecule instead of going to the axial positions. And then, whatever the reason, why doesn't this happen if the molecule is octahedral? When the molecule is octahedral the lone pairs go to the axial position, not the equatorial positions. Seems inconsistent to me! :)
 
Hmm... I think I get it. In the video, he says it's because we are trying to minimise the number of 90 degree angles between the lone pairs and the bonding pairs. With axial lone pairs, he says, there are many more 90 degree angles.

At first I thought, surely it is six either way? With axial lone pairs, there is one 90 degree angle per lone pair / bond pair. With equatorial lone pairs, it's still one 90 degree angle per interaction.

But I think I understand that the point is in the second case, the bond angles are not 90 degrees: they are bent slightly wider. Is that it?

But that leaves me wondering why the same thing doesn't apply to square planar.
 
Last edited:
In the t-shape you have 1 lone - lone interactions with 120 deg, 4 lone - bound interactions with 90 deg, 2 lone - bound interactions with 120 deg, and 2 bound bound interactions with 90 deg.
In the trigonal shape you have 6 lone - bound interactions with 90 degs, and 3 bound-bound interactions at 120 deg.

But the repulsion between two bond pairs at 120 degrees will be much smaller than at 90 degrees. So you can concentrate on the interactions of pairs at a 90 degree angle.
For the t-shape you have 4 lone-bound and 2 bound- bound interactions compared to 6 lone-bound interactions in the trigonal shape.
Hence the t-shape is cleary energetically more stable.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K