Calculating X-M-X Angles in MX6 with Octahedral Geometry | P&C Method Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter mooncrater
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angles
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the number of X-M-X angles in MX6, which exhibits octahedral geometry. The correct number of angles is 12, as opposed to the initially calculated 15 using the combination formula 6C2. The discrepancy arises from the distinction between adjacent and non-adjacent bonds; while the initial calculation includes all combinations, the accepted solution only considers angles between adjacent bonds. This highlights the importance of understanding the context in which angles are counted in molecular geometry.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of octahedral geometry in coordination compounds
  • Familiarity with combinatorial mathematics, specifically combinations
  • Knowledge of molecular bonding and angles
  • Basic principles of geometry in chemistry
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of octahedral geometry in coordination chemistry
  • Learn about adjacent versus non-adjacent bond angles in molecular structures
  • Explore combinatorial mathematics applications in chemistry
  • Investigate the significance of bond angles in determining molecular shape
USEFUL FOR

Chemistry students, educators, and professionals involved in molecular geometry and coordination chemistry, particularly those studying or teaching octahedral complexes.

mooncrater
Messages
215
Reaction score
18

Homework Statement


The question says:
Find the number of X-M-X angles in MX6, which has an octahedral geometry.

Homework Equations


None

The Attempt at a Solution


To do this question , I used p&c .
Since there are 6 X in MX6 and we have to choose two of them . Therefore total number of M-X-M bonds will be 6C2=15.
But the solution says that it is 12. When I saw it , I noticed that they had missed the opposite M-X-M bonds. So why had they(the solution makers) not counted those bonds? Are they wrong here ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can't think of a good answer to your question. We typically speak only about angles between adjacent bonds, but technically counting angles between non-adjacent bonds is not a mistake if the question is worded just "count angles between bonds".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mooncrater

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
9K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K