Molecular Geometry & Bonding
what the shape decides
The collection

Every essay — page 3

Page 3 of 36, continuing through the fields in the same order.

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

What the shape is for

Coordination compounds, where the shape decides a colour, a magnetic moment and a bond length — and where the one-electron picture used everywhere else in the collection stops being enough.

The whole difference lives at the two ends. The energy difference between the two dimerisations of an open chain, held at the same distortion, multiplied by the number of sites. It settles on a constant — 1.09 in units of the hopping — so the difference per site falls as one over the length, with a fitted exponent of -1. An end is a bond that is not there, and it is worth the same amount whatever it is attached to.

The distortion the ends decide

A chain of an even number of sites has an odd number of bonds, so its two dimerisations are different molecules rather than one molecule translated. Held at the same distortion they differ by 1.08715 in units of the hopping, whatever the length — a fixed amount of energy living at the two ends, with the per-site difference falling as one over the length at a fitted exponent of −0.99986. And below a hundred and twenty-eight sites the second dimerisation does not exist at all.

6 figures The metal's charge is a coordinate, and the count is not. The metal's charge in an octahedral d6 complex, against how much of each shared pair the ligand is given. Half each is Mulliken's rule and the whole to the ligand is the assumption an oxidation state makes; the answer runs over 2.06 electrons between them. The oxidation state itself is 0, which is off the end of the range, and the electron count is the same number at every point on it.

An integer nobody measured

The oxidation state of chromium in the hexacarbonyl is zero. Its charge, computed from the same wavefunction, is anywhere between −3.04 and −0.98 depending on how the shared electrons are divided — and the integer sits outside that whole range. The electron count, meanwhile, is eighteen at every point on it.

8 figures What the second channel buys, and what it cannot. Five measured splittings against three models. Adding the π overlap takes the error from 1747 to 1402 cm⁻¹, and telling the model which ligand is an acceptor takes it to 961 — so the fact about occupation is worth more than twice the integral. The two halides are the pair that fixes which model is which, and no single one of the three gets both them and cyanide right.

The integral that cannot count electrons

Adding the π channel to a ligand-field splitting means one more overlap integral over the same two orbitals at the same distance. It removes a fifth of the error. Telling the model which ligand is a π acceptor — one word per ligand, quoted rather than computed — removes forty-five per cent, because an overlap cannot know whether the orbital it reaches is full or empty.

5 figures How much of a curve each extra parameter has left to work with. The singular values of the design matrix for a susceptibility curve, for two, three and four parameters fitted to the same data, on a logarithmic scale. With four they run 12.411, 2.026, 0.149, 0.025 — a span of 500 — so one per cent data fix the first two to under 3 per cent and the last to 37. Each value is what is left of the measurement after the directions above it have taken their share, so a short bar is not a hard parameter but an absent one.

How many parameters a curve is worth

A susceptibility curve routinely carries four fitted parameters and the question of whether it can support them is never asked. It has an arithmetic answer: the four directions the fit sees span a factor of five hundred, so one per cent data fix the first two to under three per cent and the last to thirty-seven — and forty points reaching two kelvin are worth more than sixteen thousand starting at twenty.

8 figures However hard the π channel is driven, the counted orbital stays the metal's. The metal's share of the filled T₂g orbital against the π coupling, with the eighteen-electron count drawn beside it. The share falls from 1 to 0.5467 across a coupling range of 80,000 cm⁻¹ and approaches a half from above without reaching it: the lower eigenvector of a two-level problem always carries more of the lower basis function, whatever the coupling. The count is eighteen at every point.

The count that cannot be broken by strength

Back-donation puts electrons into orbitals that are not the metal's, and the eighteen-electron rule counts the metal's nine. Turning the π channel up as far as it will go never breaks it: the counted orbital's metal share falls from 100 per cent to 54.67 and approaches a half from above without reaching it. What does flip it is not strength but order.

6 figures The four things a susceptibility curve measures, in order. The four directions in the parameter space, best fixed first, each written as the product of powers it is. The Jacobian is logarithmic, so a direction is a set of exponents and a combination is a product — which is why the answer can be printed. The best-determined is g · J^-0.33, fixed to 0.08 per cent by a curve measured to one per cent; the worst is tip · rho^-0.40, fixed to 40. Neither is one parameter's own axis.

The product a curve measures

A susceptibility curve's fourth parameter is undetermined, and the question is which combination the free direction actually is. It is a product of powers, because the Jacobian is logarithmic — and at the usual window it is the temperature-independent term divided by the 0.40 power of the monomer fraction, fixed to forty per cent, while the product one place up is fixed to 6.7. A paper could print that instead of four numbers.

6 figures The gap that makes sixteen special does not move. The gap above the sixteen-electron closure of a square plane and above the eighteen-electron closure of an octahedron, against the π strength. The octahedron's is 3eσ − 4eπ and moves at every value; the square plane's is exactly 2eσ until the π strength reaches a quarter of the σ one, because the orbital that sets it is d(z²) and a square-planar ligand set has nothing of that symmetry to offer. Past the threshold the two are the same number, which is not a coincidence: beyond it the square plane's gap is set by d(xy) and the expression is the octahedron's.

The orbital a ligand cannot reach

The sixteen-electron count of a square plane is a statement about an energy rather than about symmetry matching, so it was the count that ought to be sensitive to a π channel where the eighteen-electron one is not. It is not sensitive either — and for a sharper reason. The orbital that sets its gap is d(z²), and a square-planar ligand set contains nothing of that symmetry, so the gap is exactly 2eσ until the π strength reaches a quarter of the σ one.

5 figures What the gap alone would predict, and what was fitted. Each halide's π scale as a multiple of fluoride's: the value fitted to the spectrochemical series, against what the energy denominator alone gives with the metal orbital at the vacuum level — which is the weakest the denominator effect can be. It over-predicts at every ligand, and moving the metal level down makes it worse.

The gap that would have to be smaller

An angular overlap parameter is an overlap squared over an energy denominator, and the usual fit folds the denominator away. Put the measured ionisation energies back in and the denominator alone over-predicts the trend down the halide group at every metal level a donor permits — the smallest it can give is 1.67 against a fitted 1.43. So the overlap has to shrink down the group, which is the opposite of the usual expectation.

6 figures The sixteen-electron gap, from a plane to a tetrahedron. The gap above eight d electrons as four ligands are folded out of a square plane towards a tetrahedron, at three π strengths. It is 2eσ exactly at the plane whatever the π strength is, and exactly zero at the tetrahedron whatever it is — the upper three levels there are the degenerate t₂ set. In between the three curves separate, and the separation is what the π channel is doing.

The gap that only a tetrahedron closes

The sixteen-electron gap is 2eσ exactly, and a square-planar π set cannot touch it because d(z²) has no partner there. Fold the ligands out of the plane and the gap survives almost intact for fifteen degrees, closes to nothing only at the tetrahedron — and loses its exactness at the very first degree.

6 figures The acceptors' π* levels, as measured. For each π acceptor: the energy at which a slow electron is temporarily captured, which is the π level above the vacuum, and the π scale this collection's series carries for it. Carbon monoxide's and dinitrogen's resonances are measured on the molecule itself; cyanide's cannot be, because an electron cannot be attached to an anion, so hydrogen cyanide's stands in for it — the same π with a proton where the metal would be.

A denominator that fails both ways

The energy gap an e_π folds away over-predicts the halide trend at every metal level a donor allows, and the acceptors look out of reach because a π* is not an atomic level. It is measurable — a slow electron is captured by it — and on that side the same denominator under-predicts. No metal level fixes either, and the two want it moved in opposite directions.

6 figures What a fifth ligand does to the gap above eight electrons. The gap between the fourth and fifth d levels as one axial σ donor is brought in, and as two are. It closes exactly linearly — 2eσ less one eσ for each unit of axial σ strength — and a full octahedron has none of it left. The rule of sixteen has a gap to be about only while the axial positions are empty, and how much of it survives is a number rather than a yes or no.

The ligand the rule was waiting for

A sixteen-electron complex is called reactive because it can add a ligand, and the gap that makes it sixteen points straight at where the ligand arrives. Bringing one in closes the gap exactly linearly — and leaves its exactness completely untouched, which is the opposite of what bending the same complex does.

6 figures Folding two ligands makes the gap bigger before it makes it smaller. The gap above eight electrons as two of the four ligands fold to the same side. It rises first, to 2.0938eσ at 20°, before falling. The four-ligand path only ever closes it, so the direction the gap moves is not a property of bending — it is a property of which ligands bend.

The distortion that opens the gap

Two distortions close the sixteen-electron gap — one by bending all four ligands, one by adding a fifth. Folding two of the four makes it larger, by five per cent, before it makes it smaller. And it costs the exactness at the first degree, while the gap is still growing, so the size of a gap and whether it is exact are not one measurement.

6 figures