Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused

From	Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused
Date	2016-03-26 11:39 +0100
Organization	Good company
Message-ID	<nd5omt$oev$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<3d1f9bd1-4e8f-415d-b9cd-363cadfa7fcc@googlegroups.com> <74b40c6b-b632-433f-8aeb-e8ec2e0eb571@googlegroups.com> <nd2lnf$bpl$1@dont-email.me> <e91ae499-fa03-4bee-b115-57b69d6090e4@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Dne 25/03/2016 v 13:10 James McGinn napsal(a):

> 
> True.  But do you know why?  It's because in a tetrahedron all four corner are eqi-distant from each other.  So it make no difference which two have covalen bonds, it will always produce the Mickey Mouse ears shape.
> 
Tetrahedron bond geometry is consequence of
 geometry of 4 SP3 hybrid molecular orbitals of the central atom.

It is true tetrahedron only in symmetrical case.

Symmetrical methane CH4 with 4 bonds
has all bond angles 109.5 degree, as for tetrahedrone.

For ammonia NH3 with 3 bonds and 1 electron pair,
the bond angle is lower, about 107 degress.

For water H2O with 2 bonds and 2 electron pairs,
the bond angle is even lower, about 104.45 degrees.

The electron pairs act like repulsors,
pushing the bonds closer each other.



-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

Thread

Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 20:11 -0700
  Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 07:30 +0100
    Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 05:10 -0700
      Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 10:25 +0100
        Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Bojana Kudryavtseva <bojkud@rtyn56h67i.org> - 2016-03-26 10:33 +0000
          Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 10:36 -0400
            Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-27 05:04 +0200
              Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-28 05:12 +0200
                Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-28 21:37 +0200
                Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Ewan <iq49j@noemail.edu> - 2016-03-28 19:52 +0000
                Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-30 06:38 +0200
                Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-29 20:02 +0200
        Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 09:04 -0700
          Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 17:13 +0100
            Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 09:36 -0700
            Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 23:54 -0700
      Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 11:39 +0100
        Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 09:10 -0700
          Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 14:02 -0700
            Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-29 18:49 -0500
  Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-25 18:20 +0000
    Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 13:04 -0700
      Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-26 18:05 +0000
        Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 11:19 -0700
          Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-27 05:09 +0000

csiph-web