importance of inorganic chemistry
Best Results From Yahoo Answers Youtube
From Yahoo Answers
Answers:Inorganic chemistry is the branch of chemistry concerned with the properties and reactions of inorganic compounds. This includes all chemical compounds except the many which are based upon chains or rings of carbon atoms, which are termed organic compounds and are studied under the separate heading of organic chemistry. The distinction between the two disciplines is not absolute and there is much overlap, most importantly in the sub-discipline of organometallic chemistry
Answers:1. Because the central atom is just that much more electron-poor. If you were a Lewis acid, wouldn't *you* want to be electron-poor? 2. "Polymeric halides"? What in the world are you talking about? OK then. Group 13 elements are in the unenviable position of having only three valence electrons to contribute to four bonding orbitals. They can form 3 proper sigma bonds, but then they're out of electrons; any fourth ligand must bring a pair of electrons with it. If that fourth ligand is a halogen, it has to bond as a halide X- to e.g. AlX3 or it will still be one electron short of a shell after it bonds. And AlX3 won't last long as a trihalide because a "less electro+ve" element like Al is by definition an element with more unshielded nuclear charge, making it a wonderfully inviting Lewis acid. You might expect group 15 elements, which also have an odd number of valence electrons, to share group 13's plight, but group 15 can form three bonds and still have two electrons left for a fourth (nonbonding) orbital. Group 3 elements, like group 13 elements, have only three valence electrons to donate to 4 s+p -derived orbitals, but they form stable trihalides because group 3 elements aren't very electronegative, so that ScX3 e.g. is a poor Lewis acid. Group 5 elements are potentially analogous in that they have 5 valence electrons for 6 s+d -derived orbitals, but like group 15 they can form neutral VX3 e.g. from s+p -derived orbitals, or neutral VX5 or VX4 (probably as V2X8) e.g. from d -derived orbitals. So apparently only group 13 elements form ionic polyhalides like [AlCl4]- because they have one fewer electron than they have valence orbitals and high enough electronegativity that all those orbitals must be filled. 3. I'm thinking it has a lot to do with those two 6s electrons being waaaay out in space with no one holding them tightly, compared to those 5d electrons which are so much closer and, as a group, so very spherically symmetric. In other words, you're out of easy electrons to abstract in the highest oxidation state. All that's left is the completed (sub)shells deeper in. 4. Dunno. Maybe Li+ is just sooooo little that the lattice energy is dominated by chloride-chloride repulsion, and lithium-chloride attraction just ain't enough to keep the family together. If "very reactive" is another way of saying "alkali and alkali earth metals", then very reactive metals make very stable lattices with high lattice energy, so your statement is *not* true. Lattice energy depends on ionic charge, the dimension of the lattice, and the crystal structure. Lattice energy generally decreases in a group from top to bottom because the cell dimension increases with the ionic radius. This is true of both anion and cation. Comparing cations from different groups is more difficult, because the crystal structure may be different. The lattice energy of MgO is about 4 times that of NaCl. Both form FCC crystals, so only their relative ionic charge matters. The lattice energy of MgCl2 is about 2 times that of NaCl, but crystalline MgCl2 is rhombohedral, not FCC, and this difference depends more on crystal structure than ionic charge (though it is a tempting coincidence). The group trend breaks down if the cation is too small to "touch" the anions it's coordinated with in the lattice. (Think stacks of billiard balls here.) That's unstable, like stacking billiard balls directly on top of billard balls without anything in the interstices to keep them from slipping side to side. When that happens, the lattice will reform with a different crystal structure that permits anions to "touch" cations. If that's not possible, the crystal will fall apart, with billiard balls sliding every which way. (I know, I agree, but I don't have another explanation that doesn't involve math.) If halides or carbonates of lithium don't crystallize properly, I suspect that this is why. Basically, reactivity doesn't have much to do with ionic crystals. Both Na+ and Mg+2 are cations; the important point is, they've both reacted as much as they can to become cations. (Poor dears.) 5. I'm not sure what you mean. It doesn't form stable complexes. OK, maybe as a Li+ Lewis acid ligand. I stand corrected. Lithium has an s and three p orbitals, so of course it can form 4 sigma MO with 4 ligands. In general chemistry you'd say "sp3" and be done, but in inorganic chemistry you'd probably rather mix the s and p(x,y,z) with reference to a character table. Either way Li+ can coordinate 4 ligands because it has 4 atomic orbitals that can contribute to 4 (pair) of molecular orbitals by mixing with 4 atomic orbitals from 4 ligands. Sorry, FlowerGirl. I was careless. 6. Can it? Could you give an example? Sure Be is more electronegative than Li, but BeLi2 is out (one bonding, one antibonding, bond order of zero), and adding more lithium just gives you dilithium. If you can cook up BeLi, please give me the recipe, because that would be *very* cool indeed. OK, I don't know WHAT I was thinking here. Be can contribute an s and a p orbital to mix with two Li s orbitals and form two (pair) of molecular orbitals. A glance at a character table will convince you that these will mix to yield a c- or d-infinity linear geometry. One Be e- and one Li e- in each bonding MO yields two stable bonds of BO=1. There's no reason this can't happen. Alkali metals though don't seem to be the "alkalies" you meant in your question. No matter. By the same token, [(-)OBeO(-)] will also form by again mixing a Be s and p with two ligand s orbitals. Same symmetry group, same bonds. The only difference is that here Be acts as an electron donor (Lewis base) while in LiBeLi Be acts as an electron acceptor (Lewis acid). 7. Two electrons around one leetle proton? There isn't enough electrostatic attraction to hold the electrons, and the thing is so small it can mount a nucleophilic attack on almost any electron-poor niche. Finally, you must be VERY careful of Wikipedia. It isn't a completely reliable source. (OMG! Really?) Look up "vanadium tetrachloride" (VCl4) in WP. Calculate the formal charge on vanadium in the picture. Weird, huh? There's one electron missing, which means that's either the picture of the cation [VCl4]+, or someone made a big mistake in depicting VCl4 with tetrahedral geometry.
Answers:I'll just give the answer to the second question, since the first one's been explained already. The elements nickel and cobalt both have isotopes (like many other elements )and the relative atomic mass of these two elements is calculated by the AVERAGE of all their isotopes present - considering the relative percentage abundance of the isotopes. Isotopes differ in the number of neutrons. Hence, an isotope with a greater mass number will have more number of neutrons than the one which has a lower mass number. It is therefore possible that cobalt has a more percentage abundance of that isotope which is heavier (i.e. having more number of neutrons) and by calculation, its relative atomic mass is found to be more (58.9). For nickel, therefore, it is possible that it has more percentage abundance of the the lighter isotope (having less neutrons) and less of the heavier isotope, so that when calculating, the relative atomic mass is found to be less that cobalt. Another example of this is between argon and potassium. Potassium has a bigger atomic number than argon but smaller atomic mass.
Answers:Organic chemistry originated as the study of the substances involved in living systems, hence the root word "organ." Later in the history of chemistry, it got too confusing to stay with that definition, because there are so many compounds that are of mineral composition that are also involved in living systems. So the definition of "organic" changed, now meaning any compound that includes carbon in its composition. Thus inorganic chemistry is that which does not involve carbon. When you use ammonia to wash your windows, you're using inorganic chemistry. For that matter, when you rinse your hands in water, you're using the solvent property of H2O, an inorganic compound. (If you use soap or detergent, though, you're including organic substances.) When you mix rock salt with the ice in an old-fashioned hand-crank ice cream maker, you're using inorganic chemistry. When you add muriatic acid to your swimming pool to lower the pH, it's inorganic chemistry. Common laundry bleach, too, sodium hypochlorite, is an inorganic compound. The lead plates and sulfuric acid in a car's battery apply the electrical properties of inorganic chemistry. Any substance that doesn't have carbon in its molecular structure is considered inorganic, so there are many, many everyday life situations that use inorganic chemistry.