basic chemistry question

Discussion in 'Community' started by phreakout13, Jan 28, 2004.

  1. macrumors 6502

    phreakout13

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Location:
    South Eastern MA
    #1
    Hi
    What would the compound CO (carbon, oxygen) look like as an electron-dot diagram?
    Thanks
     
  2. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
  3. macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #3
    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
     

    Attached Files:

    • edot.jpg
      edot.jpg
      File size:
      11.4 KB
      Views:
      280
  4. macrumors 65816

    tpjunkie

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #4
    heh, I wish we still did that in chem...now its all bull^%@ stoichometric equations, or worse, organic processes....
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    G5orbust

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    #5
    I think this is the electron dot molecule diagram for CO:
     

    Attached Files:

    • co.jpg
      co.jpg
      File size:
      24.4 KB
      Views:
      263
  6. macrumors 68000

    topicolo

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    #6
    shouldn't those + be dots? electrons are negative in charge btw.
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    G5orbust

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    #7
    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).
     
  8. macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #8
    Stoicheometry is no fun at all. Especially mass to mass calculations (as opposed to moles to mass, or moles to moles).

    I've never seen one that looks like that.

    You were taught different from me I guess.

    exactly

    scem0
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    kylos

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Location:
    MI
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    topicolo

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    #10
    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?
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Location:
    United States
    #11
    Don't forget resonance structures

    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
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    crenz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Location:
    Shanghai, China
    #12
    Seeing the title, I thought this is yet another "Does she love me?"-thread :D
     
  13. macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #13
    Yeah, I've only learned the less advanced method.

    (Learned in IPC last year)

    scem0
     
  14. macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    Roger1

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #15
    I'm done in this thread. You people are making my head hurt. Wait, maybe my furnace is leaking!! :eek:
     
  16. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2002
    Location:
    I'm not sure
    #16
    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.
     
  17. macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors 68000

    topicolo

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    #18
    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.
     
  19. macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    topicolo

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    #20
    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 :).
     
  21. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA, USA
    #21
    Wow, who would have thought, homework help on Mac Rumors!:)
     
  22. macrumors 6502a

    aethier

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    Montréal, Canada
    #22
    Re: basic chemistry question

    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
     
  23. macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #23
    Re: Re: basic chemistry question

    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.
     

Share This Page