Re: bond length
- From: maporat@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 1 Jun 2005 00:07:32 -0700
Bob wrote:
> On 31 May 2005 04:51:46 -0700, maporat@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >i am afried you didnt get another shocking finding of mine:
> >
> >if i am not wrong-
> >
> >all repeat all bond lengths can be explainrd on ..........
> >one more of less *constant lenght of the electron orbital*!!
> >
> >you undestood it well on the carbon yet it is much more *universal*
> >
> >may be one of the unknown explantions of the Avogadro's law in gass
> >but i tend to expand it to all phases!1
> >only in th eother phases if is not so simple to reval it
> >it i smuch more hiden.
> >
> >so let me try and formulate and epllain it
> >it start with a very simple finding
> >that all th eelctron electron bonds are composed of a constant unit
> >of electron length with different compbnations of bond angles
> >between those 'conecting ''arms'
> >
> >if you ask for instance how is it compatible with what we know to be
> >the distance bwenn H atoms in H2
> >it i smuch short6er than the others??
> >so
> >my suggestion is that even that h2 bond is with the same
> >constant length electron but a smaller aggle between those
> >arms of th etwo h atoms
> >just to visualise it withour poor asci tool:
> >take the letetr V
> >and imagine that on top of those two arms (of the "V" that are tweo
> >electrons
> >of 2 hydrogens that 'crossed their arms'
> >so on topp of them you have two little points that represent th etwo
> >h nucli close to those '' .....
> >so you get thye asci description of my suggestion
> >now you notice that the angle between the arms of that V
> >is say about 30 degrees so even if we take that clumsy sugestion
> >of 30 degrees
> >it will give you a much shorter distance than that of the Carbon bond
> >distance
> >and that in spight that we used in both examples the same lenght
> >of what we used in that V desription
> >iow
> >at the Carbon bond that V is much 'flater' ie it has say 120 deg
> >instead of 30
> >(remembering that in th e tripple C bond there are 3 such 'V ' s )
> >
> >but the 'arms of that 'V' remain constant for all examples
> >hope i made myself clear
> >at least as a first suggestion.
> >and i didn not one and not two examles .....to check my assertion
> >all the best
> >Y.Porat
> >----------------------
>
>
> Some comments, just once more...
>
> If you are suggesting that the electrons are not between the atoms,
what do you mean between the atoms
do you mean not on a the shortest line?
than th enasewer is
it is never on the sortest line!! that is my finding about
orbilal connections
they are never on the shortest stright line
because had it been they would destroy each other!!
the connection between orbitals is alway with some break angle
from the streight line
----------
> that is not helpful. Your angle model seems to imply that.
if we canknow some typical angles then it i suseful
on of the known to me aggles is around 3o deg break in direction
it seems to be multiples of that 30 degrees
>
> Since all the various possible single bonds between 2nd row nonmetals
> have different lengths (and the precise length varies in different
> molecules), your model has no predictive power.
you know very little about mu model
acording to it
only the elements above Fluorine are (the nuc of them)
are sort of 'rectangular pipes'
the atom id a direct result of nuc geometric structure
now it is rather mymodel that expalins th edifference between raw 1 and
2
because raw 1 is tetrahedrs and others
th e for instance deutron is definitly not a tretraheder
it is as i sayed only from the 2 raw that they have some
characteristic common shape
so th efirst raw as you saies is quit messy
just becuase of my above finding (Fluorine upards.....)
(And you have not
> shown any predictions.) So even if it had some basis, it is not useful
> for answering what was asked.
i showd mant predictions
see my table 2 at my site
hope you will get its meaning by youself
and btw i have in my book table 3
for compounds with the same conclusion:
all based on a constant length of the electron orbital !!
ie the expanded Avogadro law !!
----------
-------------
>
> To say that a 1st row element has the same size "arms" as 2nd row
> elements is not consistent with what is known about them. The bonding
> electrons are in quite different orbitals.
see above not at all the same distance between nucs.
>
> I think I had another comment, but don't recall it at the moment.
it happense to me as well
then i comfort muself:
if i forgot it -- it means not so important (;-)
>
>
> By the way, thinking of two tetrahedral C joining with two "legs"
> (single bond), 4 legs (double bond),
th e double is only with two connecting while leaving other two
*free*!
the trripple is connecting 3 of each and leaving just one of each
atom free!!
--------
etc is qualitatively useful for
> seeing the nature of those bonds.
iow makes it tangible !1
tangible is my name of the game (i am a bloody structural engineer....)
'God dint play the dice' !!
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------------
>
> bob
.
- References:
- Re: bond length
- From: Bob
- Re: bond length
- Prev by Date: Re: organic che.
- Next by Date: Re: pirahna solution
- Previous by thread: Re: bond length
- Next by thread: Re: bond length
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
