It's to do with how well the ligand can donate electron density to the metal ion.
Uff... what a question, but I give it a try: ammonia has a larger co-ordination number than water. That is why the electron configuration of ammonia is higher than the electron configuration of water, that is to say ammonia accepts more (pairs of) electrons at the central ion than water. Thus it donates more (pairs of) electrons from the central ammonia ion to the central metal ion, if they reacts with each other. So ammonia is better to form a bond. Its just an assumption. I'm not sure.
Uff... what a question, but I give it a try: ammonia has a larger co-ordination number than water. That is why the electron configuration of ammonia is higher than the electron configuration of water, that is to say ammonia accepts more (pairs of) electrons at the central ion than water. Thus it donates more (pairs of) electrons from the central ammonia ion to the central metal ion, if they reacts with each other. So ammonia is better to form a bond. Its just an assumption. I'm not sure.
ummm, you seem to very lost to me.....
NH3 is a better donor as the electrons in the lone pair are higher in energy than the lone pairs in water. This is because of the electronegativity difference, O being more electronegative than N.
For a more advanced answer..... because the electrons are higher in energy there is a better energy match between the ligand and metal orbitals involved in bonding for NH3, so the covalent bonds are stronger.
NH3 is a better donor as the electrons in the lone pair are higher in energy than the lone pairs in water. This is because of the electronegativity difference, O being more electronegative than N.
For a more advanced answer..... because the electrons are higher in energy there is a better energy match between the ligand and metal orbitals involved in bonding for NH3, so the covalent bonds are stronger.
NH3 is a better donor as the electrons in the lone pair are higher in energy than the lone pairs in water. This is because of the electronegativity difference, O being more electronegative than N. (...)
I see. Nitrogen in ammonia has a higher electronegativity (3,04) than Oxygen (2,2) in Water. And that is why the difference in terms of electronegativity is higher by far, if ammonia reacts with a metal. From that reason ammonia forms a bound stronger than water.
(...) ummm, you seem to very lost to me..... (...)
Your clue with ligands confused me. I didn't understand what the coherence between electronegativity and ligand is. Do I have your explanation right that a higher energy of ions electrons caused a higher difference in electronegativity, thus the ligands of a certain reaction product (ammonia in this case) and the metal orbital have a stronger energy to each other to bond? So the ligands of ammonia (on which electrons exist) and the orbital of metal make a stronger covalent bond than the ligands of water?
They are covalent bonds, but ionic contributions play a role due to the charge difference. The dative bonds you use in A-level are just a very old fashioned way of depicting things.
I see. Nitrogen in ammonia has a higher electronegativity (3,04) than Oxygen (2,2) in Water. And that is why the difference in terms of electronegativity is higher by far, if ammonia reacts with a metal. From that reason ammonia forms a bound stronger than water.
Read what I wrote again, you've written an answer which is almost the complete opposite of what I said
Your clue with ligands confused me. I didn't understand what the coherence between electronegativity and ligand is. Do I have your explanation right that a higher energy of ions electrons caused a higher difference in electronegativity, thus the ligands of a certain reaction product (ammonia in this case) and the metal orbital have a stronger energy to each other to bond? So the ligands of ammonia (on which electrons exist) and the orbital of metal make a stronger covalent bond than the ligands of water?
The question was answered, right? but I can't see a new one. Who should ask a new question? The game must go on! it's very interesting and instructive.
The question was answered, right? but I can't see a new one. Who should ask a new question? The game must go on! it's very interesting and instructive.
What happens to the Infrared spectra of Hydrogen when it is substituted by Deuterium?.
What happens to the Infrared spectra of Hydrogen when it is substituted by Deuterium?.
How in depth would you like to be? In short: The extra mass reduces the frequency of vibration of the bond. Beyond that I'd most likely have to look up a couple of equations to answer properly
How in depth would you like to be? In short: The extra mass reduces the frequency of vibration of the bond. Beyond that I'd most likely have to look up a couple of equations to answer properly
Expand on this point please, there is another reason.
Expand on this point please, there is another reason.
Gulp. Erm: After a quick google search, it appears that: There is a disappearance of the C-H stretching (3020 cm-1) and bending (1220 cm-1) as well as the shift to lower frequencies in deuterated compounds.
Gulp. Erm: After a quick google search, it appears that: There is a disappearance of the C-H stretching (3020 cm-1) and bending (1220 cm-1) as well as the shift to lower frequencies in deuterated compounds.
I was looking for a comparison between their bond lengths.
Since Deuterium bonds are shorter they require more energy to break. This leads to a decrease in the wave-number of the X-H stretch (which you stated).
I was looking for a comparison between their bond lengths.
Since Deuterium bonds are shorter they require more energy to break. This leads to a decrease in the wave-number of the X-H stretch (which you stated).
Hmm, I didn't know that. Interesting. . . I simply used the comparison to springs for my first deduction
I was looking for a comparison between their bond lengths.
Since Deuterium bonds are shorter they require more energy to break. This leads to a decrease in the wave-number of the X-H stretch (which you stated).
EDIT: You get the point though.
You've got to at least give a thorough answer if you're going to run this quiz.