PDA

View Full Version : basic chemistry question


phreakout13
Jan 28, 2004, 03:02 PM
Hi
What would the compound CO (carbon, oxygen) look like as an electron-dot diagram?
Thanks

mactastic
Jan 28, 2004, 04:00 PM
This I think. (http://dl.clackamas.cc.or.us/ch104-07/newpage10.htm)

scem0
Jan 28, 2004, 04:46 PM
well, if you don't want one that just uses colons, then I made this, because I think it is more accurate, and probably what you are looking for:

scem0

tpjunkie
Jan 28, 2004, 04:51 PM
heh, I wish we still did that in chem...now its all bull^%@ stoichometric equations, or worse, organic processes....

G5orbust
Jan 28, 2004, 05:47 PM
I think this is the electron dot molecule diagram for CO:

topicolo
Jan 28, 2004, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by scem0
well, if you don't want one that just uses colons, then I made this, because I think it is more accurate, and probably what you are looking for:

scem0

shouldn't those + be dots? electrons are negative in charge btw.

G5orbust
Jan 28, 2004, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by topicolo
shouldn't those + be dots? electrons are negative in charge btw.

I think he is just trying to show the difference between oxygen's and carbon's electrons. All electrons have the negative (-) charge and the use of plusses was just to show the distinction, not to imply oxygen has positive electrons (positrons).

scem0
Jan 28, 2004, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by tpjunkie
heh, I wish we still did that in chem...now its all bull^%@ stoichometric equations, or worse, organic processes....

Stoicheometry is no fun at all. Especially mass to mass calculations (as opposed to moles to mass, or moles to moles).

Originally posted by G5orbust
I think this is the electron dot molecule diagram for CO:

I've never seen one that looks like that.

You were taught different from me I guess.

Originally posted by G5orbust
I think he is just trying to show the difference between oxygen's and carbon's electrons. All electrons have the negative (-) charge and the use of plusses was just to show the distinction, not to imply oxygen has positive electrons (positrons).

exactly

scem0

kylos
Jan 28, 2004, 10:44 PM
G5 demonstrated the structure as a triple bond. Since an atom seeks 8 valence electrons for stability, it may share more than one electron with its neighbor to achieve greater stability. As well, each atom may share different numbers of electrons to achieve the proper balance, in this case O sharing 4 to fill out C and C sharing 2 to fill out O for six total shared electrons, creating a triple bond. Double bonds are understandably drawn with 2 lines and triple bonds with 3.

topicolo
Jan 29, 2004, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by scem0


I've never seen one that looks like that.

You were taught different from me I guess.



exactly

scem0

Using lines to signify 2 electrons is the other standard way of drawing them out. In fact, it's what almost all scientists use in their publications. Besides, doesn't it get tiring having to draw those annoying little dots over and over again when a simple line signifies the bond so much better?

Rend It
Jan 29, 2004, 12:58 AM
Carbon Monoxide has several possible structures, in the sense of Lewis diagrams. The fact that it has a notably small dipole moment of ~0.1 Debye alludes to the fact that the triple bond and single bond resonance structures contribute almost equally to the actual structure (they have nearly equal but opposite formal charge distributions). CO is a good example of the limitations of representing molecules in terms of lewis diagrams. The real structure comes from molecular quantum mechanics.

See
http://courses.chem.psu.edu/chem38/mol-gallery/co/co.html

-Jason

crenz
Jan 29, 2004, 04:49 AM
Seeing the title, I thought this is yet another "Does she love me?"-thread :D

scem0
Jan 29, 2004, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by topicolo
Using lines to signify 2 electrons is the other standard way of drawing them out. In fact, it's what almost all scientists use in their publications. Besides, doesn't it get tiring having to draw those annoying little dots over and over again when a simple line signifies the bond so much better?

Yeah, I've only learned the less advanced method.

(Learned in IPC last year)

scem0

themadchemist
Jan 29, 2004, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by topicolo
Using lines to signify 2 electrons is the other standard way of drawing them out. In fact, it's what almost all scientists use in their publications. Besides, doesn't it get tiring having to draw those annoying little dots over and over again when a simple line signifies the bond so much better?

it's just much cleaner. much better to deal with, too, when doing organic mechanisms. I was working on the glycolysis mechanism last weekend. AAAAH! Wow, that thing is long and rife with the pushing of electrons.

Roger1
Jan 29, 2004, 06:21 PM
I'm done in this thread. You people are making my head hurt. Wait, maybe my furnace is leaking!! :eek:

maluscanis
Jan 29, 2004, 06:51 PM
Using lines is standard...Dots are used primarily as a teaching method in the beginning of chemistry...your teacher might want you to use dots instead of lines at this point in time.

And absolutely, the metabolic pathways of the body are astounding. What has most amazed me over the years are allosteric effectors. The way different parts of the body communicate with each other is due in great part to these fascinating mechanisms.

If you fail to be amazed, then you do not understand it.

themadchemist
Jan 29, 2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by maluscanis
Using lines is standard...Dots are used primarily as a teaching method in the beginning of chemistry...your teacher might want you to use dots instead of lines at this point in time.

And absolutely, the metabolic pathways of the body are astounding. What has most amazed me over the years are allosteric effectors. The way different parts of the body communicate with each other is due in great part to these fascinating mechanisms.

If you fail to be amazed, then you do not understand it.

You are absolutely right! Of course, I do not pretend to have an intimate knowledge of biochem (yet), but it is a beautiful, mind-boggling field. Allostery is extremely interesting. I just hope that I'll get to do coursework soon that won't simply talk about the fact that allostery and other phenomena occur, but will go into deeper discussion about, say, the chemical reactions that create the conformational changes that occur, say, when oxygen binds hemoglobin and enhances hemoglobin's oxygen-affinity.

For example, I took it upon myself to find and study the electron-pushing mechanism for glycolysis, instead of just memorizing the reagents...I feel that it is important to understand how and why something happens, on the basis of fundamental physical and chemical laws, rather than just that it happens.

Then, and truly then, can the amazement at biological mechanisms be more than simply the daunting feeling of puzzlement, but instead the incredible respect and wonder at the precision, logic, and elegance of the processes.

topicolo
Jan 30, 2004, 04:53 AM
OOOOh!!! Goody! Biochemistry is what I'm studying in University. I agree that Metabolism is one of the most interesting aspects of the field, but it is also one of the hardest. Just memorizing all of the enzymes, intermediates, products, activators and inhibitors of glycolysis, the citric acid cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation makes my head hurt.
Still, it beats synthesizing mult-ring aromatic compounds in organic chemistry. yuck.

Oh well, as much as I like biochemistry, it's appeal seriously diminishes when you spend two back-to-back all nighters trying to finish up a 20 page lab report (that's why this is being posted at 5:52am). :( . I just want some sleep, but biochem is a cruel, cruel mistress.

themadchemist
Jan 30, 2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by topicolo
OOOOh!!! Goody! Biochemistry is what I'm studying in University. I agree that Metabolism is one of the most interesting aspects of the field, but it is also one of the hardest. Just memorizing all of the enzymes, intermediates, products, activators and inhibitors of glycolysis, the citric acid cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation makes my head hurt.
Still, it beats synthesizing mult-ring aromatic compounds in organic chemistry. yuck.

Oh well, as much as I like biochemistry, it's appeal seriously diminishes when you spend two back-to-back all nighters trying to finish up a 20 page lab report (that's why this is being posted at 5:52am). :( . I just want some sleep, but biochem is a cruel, cruel mistress.

It's NOT memorizing!! Well it is, but if you learn electron-pushing, a lot of it follows logically from basic rules.

Yes, aromatic organic chemistry blows royally. A lot of carbonyl stuff is quite challenging, too, but a little more fun.

Edit: But aromatics are important for pharmacology, which makes them a very interesting point of study as far as synthesis goes.

Synthesis would be a lot more fun if there was no testing involved. Hell, I'd buy a book of problems and just sit around and do them, because they're like puzzles.

topicolo
Feb 5, 2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by themadchemist
It's NOT memorizing!! Well it is, but if you learn electron-pushing, a lot of it follows logically from basic rules.

Yes, aromatic organic chemistry blows royally. A lot of carbonyl stuff is quite challenging, too, but a little more fun.

Edit: But aromatics are important for pharmacology, which makes them a very interesting point of study as far as synthesis goes.

Synthesis would be a lot more fun if there was no testing involved. Hell, I'd buy a book of problems and just sit around and do them, because they're like puzzles.

Met is mostly understanding of the relationships between all of the enzymatic pathways and stuff, but memorizing the basic building block pathways isn't easy.

I agree with you about the synthesis stuff tho. it's actually fun and interesting--IF you don't have a clock counting down and if you're not getting graded :).

sethypoo
Feb 5, 2004, 10:37 PM
Wow, who would have thought, homework help on Mac Rumors!:)

aethier
Feb 6, 2004, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by phreakout13
Hi
What would the compound CO (carbon, oxygen) look like as an electron-dot diagram?
Thanks

Do you mean the Rutherfurd-Bohr diagram? (which is like chemisrty we did in grade 9) or wait is that called the Lewis Diagram,, can't remember, in the chemistry i am in now, we don't even do that, we are currently doing La Châtalier principle.

aethier

themadchemist
Feb 6, 2004, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by aethier
Do you mean the Rutherfurd-Bohr diagram? (which is like chemisrty we did in grade 9) or wait is that called the Lewis Diagram,, can't remember, in the chemistry i am in now, we don't even do that, we are currently doing La Châtalier principle.

aethier

Lewis structures are really far more useful for bioorganic molecules. They are a useful way to look at stereochemistry.

But the line diagram for CO, I think, would be more useful in the long run to have than the dot diagram thing.

Le Châtelier, aah, I remember those days. That stuff is incredibly important, and will become second nature to you when doing organic chemistry, biochemistry, etc.