Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
Author: Subject: Measuring Electronegativity
SamF
Harmless
*




Posts: 7
Registered: 24-11-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 14-12-2010 at 12:49
Measuring Electronegativity


The general chemistry textbook I'm reading explains how Linus Pauling came up with his electronegativty scale. Given a pair of atoms A and B, if we let ΔE<sub>AA</sub> and ΔE<sub>BB</sub> be the dissociation energies of an A-A and a B-B bond respectively, then an estimate of the covalent component of the bond energy of an A-B bond is (ΔE<sub>AA</sub>*ΔE<sub>BB</sub>;)<sup>1/2</sup>. So that if ΔE<sub>AB</sub> is the dissociation energy of an A-B bond, then

Δ= ΔE<sub>AB</sub> - (ΔE<sub>AA</sub>*ΔE<sub>BB</sub>;)<sup>1/2</sup>

is a measure of the ionic component of the bond. More specifically, Pauling defined

X<sub>A</sub> - X<sub>B</sub> = 0.102Δ<sup>1/2</sup>

Where X<sub>A</sub> and X<sub>B</sub> are the electronegativities of atoms A and B and Δ is the expression in the prior equation.

I have some questions. If I can directly observe in the lab the dissociation energies of an A-A bond, a B-B bond and a A-B bond, then I can compute the difference between the electronegativities of A and B, but how would I arrive at the exact number listed on the periodic table if all I can observe are differences? Would I have to set one element to 1 and then set all electronegativities relative to that one? Also, wouldn't the subtle influences of the rest of the molecule cause these bonds to have slightly varying dissociation energies depending on the molecule they're in? Which one is the "real" dissociation energy? And finally, where did the 0.102 come out of? It seem kind of ad hoc to me and my book doesn't explain it further.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
kmno4
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1497
Registered: 1-6-2005
Location: Silly, stupid country
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 14-12-2010 at 14:01


As far as I remember, Pauling originally used arithmetic mean value, not gemetrical one (as in your post). However, results are almost the same :D.
Google will tell you the rest ( if you bother yourself using it).
View user's profile View All Posts By User

  Go To Top