- Messages
- 737
- Reaction score
- 127
- Points
- 53
No hydrogen bond is formed only when hydrogen is directly bonded to fluorine, nitrogen or oxygen.is it hydrogen bond coz hydrogen is attached to highly electronegative Cl ?
We are currently struggling to cover the operational costs of Xtremepapers, as a result we might have to shut this website down. Please donate if we have helped you and help make a difference in other students' lives!
Click here to Donate Now (View Announcement)
No hydrogen bond is formed only when hydrogen is directly bonded to fluorine, nitrogen or oxygen.is it hydrogen bond coz hydrogen is attached to highly electronegative Cl ?
yeh the requirements for a hydrogen bond are:i think its permanent cuz the hydrogen bond occurs only with nitrogen,oxygen,fluorine (N,O,F)
Umm... dude you're negating yourself.Yea thats permanent dipole dipole interaction but what i meant was that Van der Waal's forces comprise of 2 types of forces. One is dipole dipole interactions and the other is dispersion forces(aka temporary induced dipoles or London forces)
Oh yeah, and, can someone briefly explain bond angles to me? Or link me to somewhere that explains it?
I get the main idea, that the more lone pairs there are, the more repulsion there is, but in which case is it 104.5 or 109? How can I tell what the bond angles in a compound would be?
Like, I have a question here that asks: Suggest the size of the C-O-C bond angle in methoxymethane (CH3OCH3). The answer is 104.5, but how would I figure that out? Why not 109?
no no ure getting confused. All intermolecular forces are collectively known as Van der Waal's forces. The various different types were first explained by different people at different times. Dispersion forces that are temporary and induced dipoles were first introduced by London in i think 1930 hence temproary and induced dipoles are also known as London Forces. Dipole Dipole interactions were first explained by Keesom in 1912. But the bottom line is that all of them are collectively referred to as Van der Waals forces!Umm... dude you're negating yourself.
As far as I know Instantaneous dipole-Induced dipole (temporary dipoles) forces have London Forces and Van der Waal's forces under them.
And then dipole-dipole forces are basically permanently dipole-permanently dipole forces... the one between two polar molecules.
http://www.xtremepapers.com/papers/CIE/Cambridge International A and AS Level/Chemistry (9701)/9701_s09_qp_2.pdf q3 dii
can anyone explain please..when to use the 0.50-x and 0.20+x method
and 1 more doubt
is the type of bond in PH3 permanent or induced? how to get it?
no no ure getting confused. All intermolecular forces are collectively known as Van der Waal's forces. The various different types were first explained by different people at different times. Dispersion forces that are temporary and induced dipoles were first introduced by London in i think 1930 hence temproary and induced dipoles are also known as London Forces. Dipole Dipole interactions were first explained by Keesom in 1912. But the bottom line is that all of them are collectively referred to as Van der Waals forces!
dude Im gonna kill you.. I just posted that a sec ago!Sorry not ALL intermolecular forces are Van der Waals. Hydrogen Bond is not included in Van der Waals forces.
Hahaha yea sorry. Apart from Hydrogen Bonds, the rest are known collectively as Van der Waals forccesdude Im gonna kill you.. I just posted that a sec ago!
yeh you're right ... so induced dipole- permanent dipole (Debyce force), permanent dipole- permanent dipole (keesom force) and instantaneous dipole-induced dipole (london force) are all Van der Waal'sHahaha yea sorry. Apart from Hydrogen Bonds, the rest are known collectively as Van der Waals forcces
Yup they are Van der Waals! Hahaha well ure not the only one who's been there!yeh you're right ... so induced dipole- permanent dipole (Debyce force), permanent dipole- permanent dipole (keesom force) and instantaneous dipole-induced dipole (london force) are all Van der Waal's
This is what happens when you read your notes after a year and misinterpret them xD
Because the oxidation number of Cl in PCl3 is -3 and since PCl3 is neutral over all... P has to have the oxidation no. +3 to cancel out the -3 and the over all oxidation state of PCl3 can be zero. (-3+3=0)Could someone please help me with Nov 2009 p22 question ai)?
The answers say that the oxidation numbers of P in PCl3 and S in SCl2 are+3 and +2 respectively. Could someone please explain to me why these aren't -3 and -2?
Thanks!
really thank u sooo much..this is so appreciatedExcuse my poor painting skills. Hope you got the point.
Are you kidding me?.Chemistry is AWESOME!..studying for chemistry is the most boring out of all my subjects =_=
For almost 10 years, the site XtremePapers has been trying very hard to serve its users.
However, we are now struggling to cover its operational costs due to unforeseen circumstances. If we helped you in any way, kindly contribute and be the part of this effort. No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted.
Click here to Donate Now