| a very important question |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
kayvanfar67
Junior Member
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 5
Location: iran - bushehr(buz)
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:44 pm Post subject: a very important question |
 |
|
we know that (s) and (o2) can make a covalent bond.
now please tell me why (s) and (o) can not do this?
Last edited by kayvanfar67 on Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kayvanfar67
Junior Member
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 5
Location: iran - bushehr(buz)
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no one to answer?  
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RobJim
Senior Member
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 320
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:06 am Post subject: Re: a very important question |
|
|
| kayvanfar67 wrote: |
we know that (s) and (o2) can make a covalent bond.
now please tell me why (s) and (o) can not do this? |
You're in such a hurry! LOL. It takes time for people to answer on forums.
First thing - your notation is confusing. By (s) do you mean elemental sulfur, S? And by (o2) do you mean oxygen gas, O2? If so, then you should realize that elements are symbolized with the first letter capitalized. The parentheses are confusing too.
Now, when you burn elemental sulfur in air sulfur dioxide is produced.
S + O2 => SO2
Monatomic oxygen is not found in nature under ordinary circumstances if at all. However, sulfur monoxide does exist; it's found in the atmosphere of Jupiter's moon for example.
Does that help?
If this is indeed what you're talking about, this thread does not belong in Theoretical Chemistry. If you don't respond with a post clarifying why it was posted here I am going to move it to the appropriate section.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kayvanfar67
Junior Member
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 5
Location: iran - bushehr(buz)
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thank u very much.
at the first u r right. and i'm sorry  .u can move it
and other thing u said is right too. i'll write S instead (s) and ...
i modified my question:
i mean that S and O2 can make a molecule with covalent bond. but S and O cannot make a molecule with covalent bond. so why?
I'm sorry again for those mistakes and i think you will forgive me
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RobJim
Senior Member
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 320
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kayvanfar67 wrote: |
thank u very much.
at the first u r right. and i'm sorry .u can move it
and other thing u said is right too. i'll write S instead (s) and ...
i modified my question:
i mean that S and O2 can make a molecule with covalent bond. but S and O cannot make a molecule with covalent bond. so why?
I'm sorry again for those mistakes and i think you will forgive me |
I still don't understand. SO is a covelant molecule, so S and O can make a covelant bond. Why are you saying they cannot?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kayvanfar67
Junior Member
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 5
Location: iran - bushehr(buz)
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
2 weeks ago i had a chemistry class. my teacher asked this question:
why sulphur reacts with the diatomic oxygen molecule to form covalent product, but not react with oxygen radical?
ok?
and i'm searching for the answer. one man answered me :
I can tell you is that forming the O=O bond is more thermodynamically favoured than S-O or S=O bonds because being small and the same size, the degree of overlap of the O valence orbitals would be greater, and thus stronger bond, and hence more exothermic than forming the sulphur-oxygen bonds. Hence, the oxygen radicals are more likely to react with each other before reacting with sulphur.
but i cannot understand. my teacher says : we have no SO. but u said : we have SO. so what can i do? and i don't know that answer (the man) is right or no?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RobJim
Senior Member
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 320
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Run a Google search on sulfur monoxide. You'll see it definitely exists. It doesn't seem to be a common molecule, but it exists in nature.
This might be one of those times chemistry teachers lie to low level chemistry students to keep things simple. They do that. I always found it really annoying, but that's how they teach chemistry. Another example is when they tell you acids all contain H(+) ions or when they talk about ionic and covelant bonds as though all bonds were always 100% one or the other.
Are you guys studying valence bond theory? Maybe sulfur molecules which hybridize d orbitals are more stable than those that don't. Since oxygen doesn't have a d orbital to use, this isn't an issue for it, so you can have O2 molecules.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kayvanfar67
Junior Member
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 5
Location: iran - bushehr(buz)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RobJim
Senior Member
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 320
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I see. That's interesting. Thanks for the link!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
