Talk:Molecular geometry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Mergers
Anyone oppose a merger of the short, stub like articles on different types of molecular geometries (e.g. trigonal planar, linear, bent etc?). I was expecting to find them in this article -- Serephine / talk - 15:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with a merge. My general concerns with merges: see User:V8rik. I think its more worthwhile to expand the molecular geometry articles (more than half still missing!) than to have merge discussions. Topics: List of molecules with this particular molecular geometry with bond lengths and angles, properties that they share, possible distortions and interconversions, explanation why molecules have this particular geometry and much much more.
- Basic summary VSEPR theory, overview: AXE method (chemistry) V8rik 19:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Mmmm, I was leaning a bit either way over this. The fact that there were several, very short and incomplete articles on specific types of molecular geometry that couldn't really be expended upon (i.e. once you have explained how something is trigonal planar, given a couple of examples... what more do you have to add? Molecules with similar geometry don't tend to share characteristics, and VSEPR explains in 2 sectences max how they come to have this shape) led to to believe that they would be better off fleshing out the larger Molecular geometry article, rather than having 6 or 7 articles which will likely remain as a paragraph or so long. I'm still not really convinced but then again, I hate stubs ;) -- Serephine / talk - 23:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)\
- I agree that they should redirect here. This article is still very short itself - it could have a section listing each one, or if that grows too large, an article purely dealing with the different shapes (e.g. List of VSEPR geometries) and a brief list here. Richard001 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wobbling
I didn't like wobbling for two reasons: first the statement is not true. At room temperature molecules do not "wobble" in a way that their geometry is not determined, and second the concept "wobble" is ill-defined. My first reaction was to change the offensive sentence, but then I thought that it would perhaps be more illuminating to explain my objections by adding a short section. --P.wormer 11:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought I came to the conclusion that wobbling means rotating and that geometries are confused with spectra. Most spectra are broadened with increasing temperatures and the errors in the measured geometries become larger for higher temperatures, but this does not mean that the concept of molecular geometry loses its value. (My confusion wouldn't have arisen if proper scientific terminology was used instead of the silly word wobbling. Lesson 101: use proper terms). --P.wormer 13:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not struck on "wobbling" either. Why not just call it "molecular motion" and start with 3N degrees of freedom and then derive the 3N-6 vibrations (3N-5 for linear)? Then talk more about translations, rotations and vibrations in as simple way as possible. --Bduke 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The article suggests that "wobbling" is some sort of widely accepted layman's term. Is it? I doubt it, and if it is it would only be used among scientists anyway, as "layman" don't sit around talking about molecular structure. I don't see why the word "wobble" needs to appear in the article at all. 68.166.68.84 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Has anybody objections if I remove "wobbling" from the introduction and rephrase the subsection "wobbling" into more scientific language?--P.wormer 08:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Removed "wobbling" and adapted section about temperature dependence of geometry.--P.wormer 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Octahedral geometry
I noticed that all geometries listed in this article provide examples apart from octahedral geometry. My first thought was the common example XeF6, xenon hexafluoride. Would anyone object to the addition of this example for octahedral geometry? Marshmellis 01:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, got confused between the two, I appreciate the help Duke. Do you think the addition of an example still has merit? --Marshmellis 07:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, SF6 would be fine. --Bduke 23:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)