Why is cyanide writted as CN- when the negative charge is on carbon?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation of cyanide as CN- and the implications of charge distribution in polyatomic ions. Participants explore the conventions of chemical notation, particularly regarding the assignment of negative charges in molecular formulas, and how these conventions can lead to confusion for those new to chemistry.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why cyanide is written as CN- instead of indicating that the negative charge is on carbon.
  • Others suggest that the notation is a matter of convenience, noting that it can be interpreted as [CN]-.
  • One participant argues that charge in polyatomic molecules is typically spread over the molecule rather than localized on a single atom, with CN- having a "more negative end."
  • Another participant raises concerns about interpreting molecular formulas, particularly regarding hydroxide (OH-), and expresses frustration over the notation conventions.
  • It is mentioned that the negative charge is not a point-like entity but rather a cloud that varies in density across the molecule, which may not be clear to beginners.
  • A participant explains that the notation CN- follows a convention where the negative ion is written on the right and the positive ion on the left, referencing the historical context of Lewis structures.
  • One participant expresses a willingness to accept the notation despite the confusion, indicating they can manage with the current conventions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the clarity and rationale behind the notation of cyanide and similar ions. There is no consensus on whether the current conventions are effective or if they contribute to misunderstandings.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight that the conventions in chemistry may not be immediately intuitive, particularly for those new to the subject, and that the understanding of charge distribution may evolve with further study.

gangsterlover
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
The Title pretty much sums it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide

Why is it written like that when it is clear that the carbon must be the one with the negative charge?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Convenience. It's actually [CN]-
 
Charge on polyatomic molecules is almost never localized on a single atom, it is typically spread over part of the molecule. Doesn't mean there are equal parts of the charge on all atoms either, CN- has a "more negative end".
 
I guess this then implies to OH- as well. But how should interpret a molecular formula like that when reading it somewhere. As an overall negative molecule, or "cause I know" interpret it as a negative charge on carbon. The same goes with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxide I guess then. But this is so frustrating to me now because if the negative charge is not on Oxygen why do they not just simply write it like that. The same goes with the cyanide example why do they have to write it like that when they could just have written it C-N
 
It is not an obvious thing to someone just starting with chemistry that charge is not a point like thing, but a cloud spread around some volume, with different densities in different places. We start with simplified models (think Lewis structures) which require electrons to be point like, electron cloud is introduced much later.
 
The minus in the exponent is shorhand for -1, which is the net charge of the ion (due to the extra electron to the normal shell configuration 'melted' into the triple bond b/w C and N). It's an exponent and nothing more. I believe that the convention to write CN- and not NC- is due to another convention: namely that if you can decompose a molecule into ionic parts, the positive ion is written on the LHS, the negative on the right. That's why you don't write (OH)2 Ca but the reverse. And of course to this convention of positioning the ions as a whole you add the convention to place the element which needs electrons to obtain the octet to the left and the 'neutral' elements to the right of the ion. So it's Ca (OH)2 and not Ca (HO)2. This of course, if you picture chemistry in terms of GN Lewis's model of 1916.

Elementary (i.e. non-quantum) chemistry contains conventions which may not seem obvious.
 
Last edited:
Oh well, I guess I`ll just deal with it, I mean I can still handle myself around it and I can still do some of the tasks and questions in the book. I understand what they mean, and I don`t really want to go to deep into this. Thanks though anyway people :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
12K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
12K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
13K