Repulsion — where it appears
Named by 15 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
VSEPR, computed
The tetrahedral angle is not 109.5 degrees because a textbook says so. It is arccos(−1/3), and it falls out of minimising the repulsion of four points on a sphere without ever being written down.
Five sites are not alike
Every other common arrangement has one or two distinct angles. Five has three, because two of its positions are on an axis and three are round an equator — and a molecule built that way does something about it.
Why water is bent
The standard answer is lone pair repulsion, it predicts the right direction, and it cannot predict the magnitude. A better rule can, and the heavier hydrides show where both accounts run out.
The shapes above six coordination
Eight points on a sphere do not arrange themselves in a cube. They twist one face by forty-five degrees, and above six the arrangements stop being the ones anybody would name and start being the ones a minimisation finds.
What a lone pair is worth
A lone pair repels more than a bonding pair, says VSEPR, without saying how much more. Put a number on it and fit that number to water, and the same number is wrong for hydrogen sulfide by a factor of two — which means it was never a property of a lone pair.
Which angles are symmetry and which are the model
VSEPR says electron pairs repel and never says by what law. For four, five and six domains it makes no difference whatever — change the exponent by a factor of twelve and not one angle moves. For seven it decides the answer.
The antibonding level goes up more
The two-level diagram every course draws is symmetric, and the symmetry is an artefact of setting the overlap to zero. Keep it, and the upper level rises further than the lower one falls — which is why helium has no molecule and why closed shells push each other apart.
The sites are not the same size
Every arrangement in this collection puts its sites on one sphere, which is an assumption about bond lengths made silently. Give the repulsion model a bond length and it predicts that the long bond goes axial — the opposite of the rule the model is always cited for.
The electrons repel less inside the complex
Two measured bands determine two parameters in closed form, and one of them is the repulsion between the d electrons — which comes out below the free ion's value for every complex, by between two and forty-seven per cent. The ligands that split most are not the ligands that reduce the repulsion most, so a complex is characterised by two numbers rather than one.
The atoms that meet across a ring
Twelve closed conformers of a ten-membered ring at one bond angle, so every one has identical angle strain by construction. Two of them differ by 0.026 kilojoules a mole in torsional energy and by 0.80 ångström in how close two atoms on opposite sides of the ring come — 2.331 against 3.131, where two carbons are in contact at about 3.4. An account built from angles and torsions calls those two structures the same.
The radius that was tabulated
A van der Waals radius is a fitted number that every structural argument in chemistry uses. Computing it instead — a repulsion taken from computed overlap integrals, an attraction taken from two measured scalars, and no length anywhere — puts helium's contact at 3.140 ångström against a tabulated 2.80, neon's at 3.226 against 3.08 and argon's at 3.996 against 3.76. And the surface two atoms actually stop at encloses 99.4 per cent of the density, not ninety.
A blindness that is inherited
There is a direction the sixteen-electron gap does not move along, and it is tempting to call it the one a complex is softest along without paying for it. That second half is a claim about an energy the gap model has no term for. Put the ligand repulsion on the same family and the answer splits: where a symmetry fixes the blind direction the repulsion is blind to it too, exactly, and slightly downhill — and where no symmetry fixes it, the two are nearly perpendicular.
One contraction for two conditions
The ionic model's errors run with the row of the periodic table, and the test proposed for that — stiffen the repulsion and watch for second-row pairs moving out and third-row pairs moving in — produces exactly that pattern from a repulsion that knows nothing about shells. The test that can fail contracts the third-row shells alone and asks one factor to bring two different groups of pairs onto the second-row ones. The two factors needed are 1.35 and 1.38.
Three contractions for one shell
One contraction of the third-row p shells removed the row pattern from an ionic model's errors, with two conditions met by factors 2.2 per cent apart, and left the order of three pairs untouched. Taken ion by ion, chloride needs 1.302, potassium 1.387 and calcium 1.441 — the pairs' own order — and potassium chloride, fitted on nothing, lands among the second-row pairs. The single factor's two conditions agreed because both were averages of these three.
The long bond goes to the crowded site
Given one bond longer than the others, the repulsion model puts it axial in a trigonal bipyramid — against the rule it is usually cited for. The reason is a crowding count, and at seven sites the count reverses: the pentagonal bipyramid's crowded site is equatorial, so a long bond goes equatorial and a short one axial. PF₅'s long bonds are axial and IF₇'s are equatorial. And at seven the site a bond avoids is not even a minimum.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
MinimisationModel limitVSEPRBond angleCoordination numberTrigonal bipyramidAxialClosed-shell configurationsEquatorialOverlap integralBent's ruleEffective nuclear charge