Why Isn't HCl a Hydrogen Bond?

AI Thread Summary
HCl does not form hydrogen bonds despite chlorine's electronegativity being similar to nitrogen's, which does participate in hydrogen bonding. The key reason is that chlorine's larger size results in its lone pairs being too diffuse to create strong hydrogen bond attractions with hydrogen atoms. While hydrogen bonds typically occur with hydrogen bonded to oxygen, nitrogen, or fluorine, HCl's molecular structure prevents this interaction. Therefore, the bonding characteristics of HCl differ fundamentally from those of ammonia (NH3). The inability of HCl to form hydrogen bonds is primarily due to the nature of chlorine's electron distribution.
loup
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Cl gets similar electronegativity as N, NH3 is a hydrogen bond, but HCl isn't, why?
N and Cl also gets lone pair electrons! N and Cl is more or less the same.

Could anybody please answer this question?

Okay, if I rephrase it, it will become why the bonding between H and Cl isn't hydrogen bond?
But I actually think you can still get what I mean......:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
HCl is not a hydrogen bond because HCl is a molecule. Please try to reword your question, as it doesn't make sense right now.
 
Do you mean other than the fact that it is defined as such?

a hydrogen bond results from a hydrogen bonded to oxygen, nitrogen, or fluorine.
 
Although one might expect hydrogen bonding to occur between HCl molecules, since Cl's electronegatively is on par with nitrogen for instance. However, chlorine is too large, and thus the lone pairs are too diffuse ie. not concentrated enough, and hence hydrogen bond attractions between Cl's lone pairs and hydrogen atoms can not form.
 
Last edited:
Too diffuse, this suggests a good reason. So it is not a matter between the bonded Cl and H, but a matter bewteen the Cl lone pair and other Hydrogen atoms?
 
Yes, that's correct.
 
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