Every essay — page 19
Orbitals Where the atoms go Bonding models What symmetry decides Beyond the octet What a spectrum settles When the molecule does not stop What the shape is for What is taught wrongly Series Named objects Orbitals Refutations Search
Where the atoms go
VSEPR as a repulsion minimisation rather than a table, the angles that fall out of it, and the case where five sites are not all alike.
The explanation with the wrong sign
Two methyl groups on one carbon make a ring easier to close, by up to eleven thousand-fold, and the textbook reason is that they compress the ring's internal angle. Computed from a standard bending term, that compression helps a three-ring and a four-ring and hinders every ring from five up — predicting a slowing of 0.754-fold for the five-ring measured to speed up 250-fold. The account with the right sign is about rotations rather than angles, and it has a ceiling of 36.5 that the measurement is already above.
A ceiling that rises where the measurements fall
The rotamer account of the gem-dimethyl effect has a largest possible acceleration, which looks like a limitation. It is a prediction: the ceiling is a closed form in the number of rotations a closure freezes, it rises steeply with ring size, and the measurements fall — so the account is refuted for the five-membered ring and more than sufficient for the six.
The table that could not have mattered
Charges taken from one of four electronegativity tables invite a worry, because the tables disagree with each other. They do disagree — hydrogen cyanide's dipole runs over a factor of eleven between them — and for the molecules in question the worry could not have applied, because a molecule of two elements has charges that are one number times a fixed pattern and a rank correlation does not notice a rescaling.
An estimate that can be wrong by two
The ceiling on the gem-dimethyl effect is exponential in the number of rotations a closure freezes, and that number was taken as n − 2 without counting — which left the refutation at five rings probable rather than airtight. It is airtight. The ceiling does not reach the measured 250 until five rotors, on a ring that has three, and no hindering of the tether can raise it.
The curve between two rows
A rotation a ring closure has to freeze was treated as free or as absent, and the two answers sat in adjacent rows of a table. A real hindered rotor is neither. The factor one rotor contributes runs from 3.316 to one along a curve nobody had drawn, and where it matters is between one and eight kilojoules a mole — which is a torsional barrier rather than a conformational preference.
Four tables and one molecule to disagree about
A molecule of two elements is provably safe from the choice of electronegativity table, and a series down a group should land where the tables do disagree. It does. All four agree that hydrogen iodide is the exception — and they disagree about what its dipole is by 1.245 debye, which is two and a half times the 0.448 that was measured.
A verdict inside its own error bar
The tightest comparison in the rotamer argument is a computed 10.99 against a measured 10 — a nine per cent margin, offered as a verdict. The computed side is built on one quoted energy known to ±0.4 kJ/mol, and that alone puts a band of twenty-three per cent on it. The verdict turns on four tenths of one standard deviation of a number nobody had put an error bar on.
A dispute is a small difference
Four electronegativity tables disagree about the direction of a quarter of a set of hydrogen bonds, and the interhalogens look like the natural test: five compounds with no hydrogen in them, to say whether the disagreement is about one awkward element or about the whole idea. All four tables agree about every interhalogen. They agree because the differences are large, and that is not a fact about halogens.
One number decides which way it breaks
The six-membered verdict gives way at 312.1 K, and that is a statement about the ceiling rather than a prediction about the ratio — because a real rate ratio has a temperature dependence the model has no term for. Putting that term in moves the crossing, and at 5.308 kJ/mol it removes it entirely.
A gap that was a choice of bonds
One number separates every disputed bond from every agreed one with nothing in between — on thirty-one bonds, which is enough to see a gap and not enough to know it is real. It is not real. The line is in the same place on all one hundred and fifty-three pairs the four tables cover, and twenty-seven agreed pairs now sit below the largest disputed one.
The count that was never written down
The rotamer ceiling for a ring closure needs a count of frozen rotations, and the counts in use disagree in direction: one gives the six-membered ring more frozen rotations than the five, another fewer. Every measured verdict survives all three defensible conventions unchanged — and the margins move by a factor of eleven, which is why a verdict decided by ten per cent was worth being nervous about.
Two numbers caught what one could not
No single threshold on the electronegativity difference separates the bond pairs whose polarity the four tables dispute from those they agree on — the best misses six of a hundred and fifty-three. Adding how much the tables disagree halves that to three and catches every disputed pair. And three is what four coin-flips produce: the rule flags nineteen pairs, an eighth of which should look agreed for no reason at all, which is 2.375 against the three observed.