Molecular Geometry & Bonding
what the shape decides
Concept

Charge transfer — where it appears

The electron count an atom gains or loses on entering a bond. It depends on the repulsion between the electrons as much as on the difference in electronegativity, so one difference is compatible with a wide range of transfers.

Named by 6 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Where the d–d band falls, and where the eye is. Nine ligands' measured splittings as wavelengths, on a logarithmic scale, with the visible range shaded. Three fall inside it; the halides sit in the near infrared and carbon monoxide in the ultraviolet. The splitting decides where the band is and does not decide what is seen.

Where a d–d band falls

A splitting is an energy and an energy is a wavelength, so the ligand field fixes where a complex absorbs. Only three of nine common ligands put that band inside the visible range at all — and the most intensely coloured transition-metal compound in the cupboard has no d electrons to excite.

applied · Ligand field The same difference, at five repulsions. The charge transferred to the more electronegative of two atoms against the difference in their orbital energies, at five strengths of the repulsion between the two electrons. Only the topmost curve is the two-level result; every other one moves far less charge at the same difference.

A difference does not make a transfer

Every electronegativity scale reports one thing: how far apart two atoms are in their appetite for electrons. Put that difference into a model with repulsion in it and the charge it actually moves is not determined at all — the same difference of one moves 0.447 of an electron with no repulsion and 0.0019 with a strong one, a factor of two hundred and forty-two, and nothing on any scale distinguishes the two cases.

bonding · Electronegativity Two derivatives of the same energy, and only one is tabulated. The 18 elements of the electronegativity tables, placed by their chemical potential — half the sum of the ionisation energy and the electron affinity, which is the Mulliken electronegativity — against their hardness, half the difference of the same two numbers. Hardness runs from 1.92 to 7.3 electronvolts, a factor of 3.8, and does not follow the horizontal axis. Ringed points are the three elements whose anion is not bound, so whose affinity is not a measurement.

The quantity no scale prints

Every electronegativity table is half of a calculation. The other half is the hardness — half the difference of the same two measurements the Mulliken scale is half the sum of — and it varies by a factor of 3.8 across eighteen elements. Put both halves in and B–F, with an electronegativity difference of 6.12 electronvolts, moves less charge than lithium iodide, whose difference is 3.75.

bonding · Electronegativity Carbon is not one number. The charge equalisation puts on carbon in the four fluoromethanes, and on hydrogen in the three that have one. Carbon's runs from 0.07 to 0.31, and hydrogen's changes sign between methane and fluoromethane, so the same C–H bond is polarised one way in one molecule and the other way in the next. A table with one number for carbon is printing the value an iteration starts from.

The value that only exists in the bond

A difference in electronegativity moves charge, and moving charge closes the difference — until every atom in the molecule has the same chemical potential. Solving that gives one number per molecule and a charge per atom, and carbon's runs from +0.0692 in methane to +0.3074 in tetrafluoromethane. Hydrogen's changes sign between the first and the second, so the same C–H bond is polarised one way in one compound and the other way in the next.

bonding · Electronegativity Four unweighted rules against the answer the hardnesses give. Twelve molecules, each drawn with the exact equalised electronegativity as a filled mark and the four unweighted means of the free atoms' values as open ones. The geometric mean — Sanderson's rule — is the closest on average, at 0.0706 eV against the arithmetic mean's 0.1666, and it is the closest on only 4 of the twelve. Every rule below the arithmetic mean is constrained to sit below it, and 2 of the exact answers do not.

A mean that is low rather than right

Sanderson's rule takes the geometric mean of the atoms' electronegativities, and it works better than the plain average. Computed against the exact equalised answer for twelve molecules it is better by erring downwards — and two of the twelve have exact answers above the plain average, where no geometric mean can go at any parameter.

wrong · Electronegativity Straight segments, and the curve fitted through their ends. Cl's energy against the charge it carries. The exact theory says the energy is straight between integers, with a kink at each one: the slope below the neutral atom is the electron affinity and the slope above it is the first ionisation energy, and the two are different numbers. Every quantity in this argument comes from the smooth curve fitted through those points instead — and the curve's second derivative, which is the hardness, is a property the segments do not have at all.

Four quantities go and one question stays

The exact theory says an atom's energy against electron count is straight segments between integers, and that model gets the alkali metals right for free — which is exactly where the fitted curves give lithium a negative electronegativity. What it costs is the hardness, the capacity, the electronegativity and equalisation, and what it leaves is a question whose answer is an integer.

wrong · Electronegativity

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

ElectronegativityElectron affinityHardnessIonisation energyPartial chargeClosed formConventionModel limitMulliken scalePolarityExpectation valuePauling scale

All concepts