« first day (2190 days earlier)      last day (2203 days later) » 

12:44 AM
could any organic chemist check this suggested edit and see if it is correct? --^ i'll likely avoid approving edits that change the core of the answer in such radical manner
 
 
2 hours later…
Anonymous
 
 
Anonymous
Yeah, shared for the same.
 
Anonymous
Huckels rule is derived from like how many electrons go in bonding molecular orbital and how many electrons go in antibonding. And on the basis of which one is greater, stability is known? So, why can't we apply the same for inorganic ones?
 
4:55 AM
I mistook SE site as a homework site for a moment
2
Q: Given coordinates of center, equation of tangent to a circle, what is their point of contact?

docA circle centre $(-6,3)$ has a tangent with equation $$3X + 2Y = 40$$ What are the coordinates of the point of contact of the tangent with the circle?

6
Q: Area of triangle

KumarA triangle is inscribed in a circle. The vertices of triangle divide the circle into three arcs of length 3, 4 and 5 units, then find the area of triangle.

interesting
236 views and a net of 13 votes on the parent post?!
13
Q: Are we happy with the Q&A books?

orthocresol Editorial note: Voting will be open until the end of next weekend (29 April), at which point we will make a decision based on the usual number of upvotes criterion. In light of the "unearthing" (or re-unearthing) of the Q&A e-books, I'd like us to consider as a community whether we are conte...

doesn't even follow Parreto's principle
arrggghhh
 
 
2 hours later…
7:24 AM
@DivyankaChaudhari Counting rules are an oversimplification. This one only works well for the cases where you actually have degenerate orbitals and orbital contributions are equal among the participating atoms (i.e. a reasonably high symmetry). If that does not apply any more, you'll have a special case and that means that these counting rules need to be modified.
You should rather focus on why these rules work for the cases for simple monocyclic hydrocarbons, and the underlying explanations, then you don't need to rely on an arbitrary number. And don't treat aromaticity as some property; it is only a word for an ideal bonding situation and a certain reactivity.
 
8:11 AM
In short: not everything that counts can be counted :P
 
Anonymous
8:29 AM
Got it. I thought a little on that what my capacity allows.
 
10:54 AM
@Zhe But if $\alpha$ is the degree of dissociation , then wouldn't it be $a-a\alpha$ for PCl5 ... ? Your line will be correct if I say $\alpha mole is dissociated in equilibrium ...?
 
Zhe
11:52 AM
@NehalSamee Ah, sorry, bad reading.
Then just replace $x$ with $\alpha$
 
12:26 PM
0
Q: What is "User cannot suggest edits to this questions"?

Divyanka ChaudhariI recently came across a poorly written question and thought of suggesting some edits to correct some spellings, mathjax and format it for a better look. But, after I was completed and clicked on suggest edits, this is what I came across: Couldn't understand what and why this was? Any help w...

 
 
2 hours later…
2:07 PM
1
Q: Why do chromyl bromide and chromyl iodide not exist?

schrodinger_16It is known that chromyl chloride exists (popularly known as the product of a test for presence of chloride ion) but chromyl bromide and chromyl iodide are unknown. Why is it so? Why don't they exist? I'd guess it has something to do with the large size of bromine and iodine compared to chlorine...

 
2:44 PM
1
A: Nitrosonium ion in the nitration of phenols

Oscar LanziPossibly the electrophile is molecular $\ce{HNO3}$. Nitric acid is strong but not super-strong ($\mathrm{p}K_\mathrm{a} = -1.3$), so solutions on the order of a mole per liter have a significant amount of molecular $\ce{HNO3}$. As $\ce{NO2(OH)}$ this can transfer its nitryl ($\ce{NO2+}$) ion moie...

This doesn't directly or indirectly answer his question. Why was my not an answer flag declined?
@GaurangTandon nice to see you generously open so many bounties these days.
 
3:43 PM
@Abcd well most of my janitorial duties are well carried out by being above 3.1k-rep, and I really don't see a point in having excess rep beyond what I require, especially when there's such decent questions left unanswered. So, yeah, I like putting bounties :-)
@Abcd NAA flag is only for the extreme cases. This may be a vague attempt at answering the question. So, in such cases, it's better to downvote and leave a comment instead of flagging for straightway deletion.
 
@GaurangTandon Put bounties on some of my good questions too please :P
 
@Abcd hehe :P tbh, though, I was really humbled by the fantastic answers my previous bounty got. Especially the one by Matthew.
 
@GaurangTandon What is their alternative to back bonding? for instance $\ce{p_{\pi} - d_{\pi}}$ back bonding
 
I'm sure Chem.se ochemists are not against back bonding
They are just against the excitable d orbitals
 
@GaurangTandon They are not against p pi d pi backbonding?
 
4:00 PM
Oh
Well, then (ping ortho until his pc crashes) ask ortho politely for a response on this, or Zhe, or any ochemist who happens to be hanging about here
 
Zhe is very inactive these days :P
 
in general @Zhe doesn't chat a lot
 
4:30 PM
Usually answering off-topic questions is frowned upon. Giving the answer without explaination to someone who seems to not understand is also frowned upon. Either give guidelines to finding the IUPAC name or give a partial answer and have Diwakar finish the job. — JavaScriptCoder 34 mins ago
 
@orthocresol am I wrong?
wait what
how come a bunch more spam answers came to that question
 
@orthocresol Well, in this case, the given answer was simply wrong.
 
(1) We, meaning us moderators, do not mind complete answers to homework questions (2) Some people still discourage it, which is alright, I have nothing against that (3) However, please don't suggest that people write partial answers
 
ok
@orthocresol but...
isn't it off topic to have that question?
and why do you not mind complete answers to off-topic questions
(homework, no work)
 
Simply put, we don't think that effort is a useful criterion.
 
4:36 PM
elaborate? (I still don't really understand)
 
sigh
 
What? you give up already?
 
no, it's just a painful discussion
 
go for it
 
Not your fault, but the topic is tiring to discuss.
 
4:37 PM
just monologue it or something
i'll listen attentively
what mod says is law
please @orthocresol? pllleeeease?
 
41 mins ago, by Abcd
@GaurangTandon What is their alternative to back bonding? for instance $\ce{p_{\pi} - d_{\pi}}$ back bonding
@ortho Please see^
 
@Abcd That depends on the context, so you should state a molecule. With transition metal-oxide complexes, for example, there is undoubtedly p-d backdonation (from oxide p orbitals to metal d orbitals). For main group stuff, I don't know what example you have in mind, but you generally want to replace the d orbital with some kind of σ* MO. Again, it depends on the exact case.
@JavaScriptCoder mainly because effort is not a useful criterion for judging whether a question is valuable or not to SE.
 
ok I think I kinda get it
 
Somebody can show a ton of effort but if it's all misguided, then the question becomes almost unanswerable
Or maybe it's all correct, in which case there's nothing to really tell them.
 
then why don't we change it already?
 
4:43 PM
Because not everybody agrees with that.
 
@orthocresol for example, consider the molecule SO2. Does it have backbonding from O to S?
 
Anyway, coming back to answers to hw questions... if the answer is poor, then downvote it, discourage it. If the answer is good, then that's perfectly fine
 
@orthocresol SF2 ?
 
What do you need backdonation for in SF2?
 
@JavaScriptCoder please, no partial answers. Read the several dozen meta posts we have about this policy of "hint answers" already.
 
4:45 PM
@orthocresol From F's lone pairs to vacant d orbitals in S
 
And what property of SF2 does that explain?
 
@orthocresol 98 degrees bond angle
11 degrees below expected 109.28
 
How about H2S, then. Its bond angle is also pretty close to 90.
 
(even Bents rule explains it partially)
 
But there are no lone pairs on H, so surely no backdonation there, right?
 
4:47 PM
@orthocresol its unhybridised
@orthocresol yeah no
 
@Abcd Exactly, so why does SF2 need to be hybridised?
@JavaScriptCoder sorry for the delay. Anyway, coming back to answers, if the answer is bad then downvote, discourage, sure. But if the answer is complete and useful to future visitors, then what's the issue?
 
@orthocresol why not?
 
@orthocresol In exam, we are just asked: "is there p pi-d pi back bonding in SO2?" answer has to be boolean value. So, from the discussion, it seems your answer is "no"?
 
Precisely.
 
I expect it to be sp^4 hybridised @ortho
 
4:51 PM
Well, if we want to go down this route, then we need to note that orbitals are hybridised, not atoms.
People loosely say an atom is "sp3 hybridised" when what they mean is that it forms four bonds (or lone pairs) with four (roughly) sp3-hybridised orbitals.
 
@orthocresol by similar logic, can we also say that there aren't any dpi-ppi bonds in SO3?
 
But anyway, I don't see a reason why any logic for H2S cannot be applied to SF2. In both cases you have one lone pair on sulfur which has mainly s character, one lone pair on sulfur which has mainly p character, and two bonds to fluorine which have mainly p character. Ergo, bond angle close(r) to 90 degrees.
@GaurangTandon Is there d-p pi bonding in (NO3)-?
 
None of them (N or O) has accessable d orbitals
 
Okay, fair enough. But why can't you adopt the same bonding scheme in (NO3)- and apply it to SO3, which is valence isoelectronic?
 
@orthocresol I will come with better examples. Please give me some time.
 
4:58 PM
sure
 
@orthocresol the way we were taught d pi-p pi bonding in SO3 was that S has accessible d subshell. Once its two p electrons are excited to 3d, those two electrons form two d pi p pi bonds with two oxygen atoms. Going by this logic, I'd say nitrate anion won't have d pi p pi bonding because N does not have acceesible d aubshell.
 
That argument is wrong from the very first sentence.
 
I know, that's why I was asking you that if it does show p pi d pi bonding, what's the reason?
 
It doesn't.
 
SO3 doesn't show p pi d pi bonding, that's your final answer?
 
4:59 PM
Yes.
However, I recognise your exams may require you to write something else...
I have no control over that.
 
Zhe
@Abcd I have spurts of activity, followed by breaks where I'm not interested in any question that has been posted
 
@orthocresol Unfortunately yes... Have a look at this YT video youtu.be/Y_U5zFsSPA8 at time 14:46. You won't understand what he says, but you can have a look at the blackboard to infer what's going on :-(
Just confirm that Blackboard image is wrong then I'll go to a sound sleep
 
@GaurangTandon such a hi fi introduction lolll
 
@Abcd haha, yes, but the dude's blackboard image was good. Just go to 14:46
 
Yeah, it's wrong.
 
5:04 PM
Finally! Good night everyone, and thanks ortho!
 
I think part of the problem is the assumption that the bond order is 2. Spoiler alert, it isn't 2.
18
A: Is the S–O bond strength in sulfur trioxide or sulfite anion larger?

Martin - マーチンDue to symmetry constraints ($D_\mathrm{3h}$) in $\ce{SO3}$ there 6 electrons in $\pi$ type orbitals. In a wider sense of the term this molecule is Y-aromatic, but the HOMO actually represents two electrons in in-plane lone pair orbitals of oxygen. The LUMO is an antibonding $\pi$ orbital with re...

 
I rarely understand Martin's answers...
Coz most of them are high level computational chemistry...
 
Fair enough, well, the important point is the bond order which is ~1.4
Now that's pretty close to the classical bond order in the nitrate anion, i.e. 4/3.
Whereas the d-orbital treatment gets to a bond order of 2
The reader is left to decide which bonding scheme is more suitable. :)
 
 
3 hours later…
@Mithoron no. ಠ_ಠ
 
8:08 PM
Again annoying day :/
 
Zhe
@Mithoron Isn't every day? :/
 
Some are worse then others...
 
Zhe
8:32 PM
truth
 
9:18 PM
@Zhe he’s alive
 
Zhe
@JavaScriptCoder Active and alive are not the same thing
 
9:44 PM
Yes
But I can assume
That you are alive
 

« first day (2190 days earlier)      last day (2203 days later) »