• We need your support!

    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)

Chemistry: Post your doubts here!

Messages
737
Reaction score
127
Points
53
No I explained that as a permanent dipole-permanent dipole force. It's intermolecular .. between one HCl molecule and another HCl molecule and that's what I believe it is. But then ibadsiddiqi said that's the same as a van der waal's force so I put that up to ask him if he's calling the force induced between two HCl molecules a van der waal's force.
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);)
 
Messages
438
Reaction score
106
Points
53
i think its permanent cuz the hydrogen bond occurs only with nitrogen,oxygen,fluorine (N,O,F)
yeh the requirements for a hydrogen bond are:
1. H atom attached to a highly electronegative atom
2. an unshared pair of electrons on the electronegative atom.
 
Messages
438
Reaction score
106
Points
53
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);)
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.
 
Messages
16
Reaction score
3
Points
3
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?

You have to mug up some angles like ammonia 109.5 tetrahydral, water 104.5, Bf3 120 triagular . These are similar then to find out the bond angels compare with these and youll find out. Just compare the lone pairs of with them which ever matches bond angle is that.
 
Messages
737
Reaction score
127
Points
53
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.
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!:)
 
Messages
103
Reaction score
28
Points
28
Thank you guys for the help, I understood some stuff that I've had trouble with all year. It's funny how you start understanding things better when the exam is nearby. :p
 
Messages
737
Reaction score
127
Points
53
Sorry not ALL intermolecular forces are Van der Waals. Hydrogen Bond is not included in Van der Waals forces.
 
Messages
462
Reaction score
166
Points
53

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    73 KB · Views: 10
Messages
438
Reaction score
106
Points
53
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!:)

so you're calling a hydrogen bond a van der waal's force too? "all intermolecular forces are collectively known as Van der Waal's forces"
and if you're righ, sorry for arguing ..guess I wasn't taught right.
 
Messages
438
Reaction score
106
Points
53
Hahaha yea sorry. Apart from Hydrogen Bonds, the rest are known collectively as Van der Waals forcces;)
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
 
Messages
737
Reaction score
127
Points
53
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
Yup they are Van der Waals! Hahaha well ure not the only one who's been there!
 
Messages
9
Reaction score
9
Points
13
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!
 
Messages
438
Reaction score
106
Points
53
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!
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)

The oxidation no. of Cl2 in SCl2 is -2 so for the entire charge to be zero S will have the oxidation number +2. (-2+2=0)
 
Messages
737
Reaction score
127
Points
53
^thats right.
To find the oxidation state always make an equation. For example NH3. The overall charge is 0 and you have to find the oxidation number of nitrogen. hence let the oxidation number of nitrogen be x. Oxidation number of hydrogen is +1 and there are 3 atoms in total. so X+ ( 1 x 3)=0. therefore X=-3. The oxidation value of nitrogen will be -3. For NH4+ the oxidation number of nitrogen will be calculated by X+(1 x 4)= +1, hence X= -3
 
Top