Which Chemical Species Has the Lowest Energy Based on Formal Charge?

  • Thread starter Thread starter omni
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charge Energy
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around determining which chemical species has the lowest energy based on formal charge. Participants agree that the most stable structure is characterized by the lowest sum of absolute formal charges and the largest negative formal charge on the most electronegative element. One user suggests that arsenic (As) can form more bonds due to its d-orbitals, making it a strong candidate for stability. However, another user argues that since oxygen (O) is more electronegative, the central structure should be considered the most stable according to the established rules. The conversation highlights the complexity of stability assessments in chemical species based on formal charge and electronegativity.
omni
Messages
192
Reaction score
1
i found the Formal charge of 3 Chemical species, now i asked to decide which one יhave the most low energy.

how can i know it, all have -3 at the sum.

i need help in this section.thanks.
 

Attachments

  • ww.JPG
    ww.JPG
    7.2 KB · Views: 534
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you mean by 'the lowest energy'? I can tell you which one is the most stable: the first one. Since As has d-orbitals, it is able to form more than 4 bonds. Combine this with the fact that oxygen tends to form double bonds, and it is readily seen that the first is the logical choice.

The most stable structure is the one with:
a) the lowest sum when the absolute values of the formal charges are added
b) the largest negative formal charge on the most electronegative element (when 2 or more
structures have the same lowest sum)
 

Attachments

hi thank you very much.
you really helped me :)

but i think you have a mistake if we work with the rules from what you given and since o is more electronegative than As so if we follow after rule b the most stable structure is the one in the center.
 
Last edited:
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