I was looking at the structure of a general triglyceride, and I know oils are non polar, but shouldn't they be polar since you have some oxygens on one side of the molecule? Thank you.
Why are xenon and krypton electronegative despite being a part of the noble gases? I thought they have stable outer shells?
Got a textbook saying that due to the relativistic effect, 5d metals build stronger bonds than 4d and 3d metals, because their d-orbitals don't experience as strong a pauli-repulsion to ligands or other metals (nevermind stronger pi-backdonation of the 5d metals). Makes sense to me and it's also referenced in this paper:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jcc.20522
However, the textbook goes on to say that the 5d metals will form bonds more readily with more electronegative elements and as a consequence, 5d metals are available in higher oxidation states than 4d or 3d metals. Why is that? Does increased electronegativity increase the energy state of the ligand orbitals, thus bringing them closer to the more elevated 5d orbitals? But then, wouldn't that also be the case for 3d and 4d metals?
I mean, what happend to all the rules we were taught in school?
The compound starts out at a neutral charge. After resonance, the positive charge is on the more EN atom and the negative charge is on the lesser EN atom. I would expect it to be the opposite. But I am sure my structure is OK. Why is this? Thanks!
I'm sure we were all taught in school that as you move to the right in the periodic table atoms become more electronegative, and the same thing happends as we move up the periodic table. We were also taught why this is. As we move to the right the outer shell of the atom fills up, and the fuller the outer shell the easier it would be to fill up the shell by adding electrons and the more intensly it will attract electrons. The move we move upwards the smaller the atoms become, the closer their outer shells are to the positively charged core and the bigger the pull the core is able to excert.
Gold, among a few other metals, break this trend. Gold is as electronegative as carbon (electronegativity of 2.54 vs 2.55) despite being to the right of tallium (1.62). Why is this?
According to google the atomic sizes are ->
Oxygen - 152 ppm Nitrogen - 155 ppm Chlorine - 175 ppm
And the electronegativities are ->
Oxygen - 3.44 Nitrogen - 3.04 Chlorine - 3.16
We can explain that Oxygen is smaller than Chlorine ; so it is more electronegative. ( Because Zeff will be higher )
But why doesn't it work that way for Nitrogen ? It is just as small as Oxygen; still it is less electronegative than Chlorine. Does it have to do with the fact that Nitrogen's last orbital is half-filled ?
Also , there were some explanations like this for the relation between Nitrogen and Chlorine's electronegativity -->
Nitrogen has 7 protons pulling on the 5 electrons of the last orbitals ( 2s2 + 2p3 ) where Chlorine has 17 protons pulling on the 7 electrons of the last orbitals ( 3s2 + 3p5 ) .
I know that this might be completely wrong , but doesn't this imply that Chlorine 's radius will be smaller than Nitrogen's ? ( Which is not the case )
I know that 1) F is really small so it has a shorter, stronger bond to H and therefore HF would be difficult to ionize and is thus a weak acid and 2) the small size of F- as a conjugate base makes it harder for the negative charge to spread out and an unstable conjugate base = strong conjugate base = weak acid
BUT: I've also read that as electronegativity increases, acidity increases which makes sense since as an atom is more electronegative it would want electrons more and so it would be a stronger lewis acid. So if fluorine is very electronegative, why is it a weak acid?
Thanks y'all!
I have a chem test that requires me to determine if a molecule is polar or no polar but he isnβt giving us a sheet with numbers.
