Talk:Covalent bond

Old talk hidden

Animated picture

please insert a animated picture of sharing electron and differentiate it from transferring electron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.118.4 (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Directional Properties should be included

I think that there is some useful material in the new section Directional Property of the Covalent Bond, added today by editor 1.39.13.71 and deleted a few minutes later by Material Scientist. It is true that the editor is inexperienced and that this edit required revisions to both formatting and English to be acceptable, so I would not favor just putting it back in as is. But the edit does make the important point that we have little mention of orbital overlap and no mention of the difference between s-s, s-p and p-p direct and lateral overlap, i.e. sigma and pi bonds (though the edit didn't use those terms). So I think we need to insert a revised version of this edit to insert the important points, with the flaws fixed and possibly better integrated into the article. I will try to get to this soon if no one else does first. Dirac66 (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Covalent structures (macromolecular structure)problems

My school taught us that macro-molecular structure have a limited no. of atoms.For example protein, starch etc. graphite, diamond and quartz should be giant covalent structure which has no end. Am I right? if it's correct I'll change it. PS my chinese username won't show sorreh 13:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 榎本徑 (talk • contribs)

First, I have moved this new section to the bottom of the talk page. From your examples, I think you meant to say that macro-molecular structures CAN have an UNlimited number of atoms, which is correct. Proteins have a large but definite number of atoms - for example all hemoglobin molecules have the same structure. Your other examples - starch, graphite, diamond, quartz - do in fact have an unlimited number of atoms, so have no end as you say. Dirac66 (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. that's not what I meant. What I meant is that the example in the article may be wrong. Quartz, diamond, graphite are giant covalent NOT macro-molecular. Starch, plastic, protein are macro-molecular. 榎本徑 (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
giant covalent are distinguished by their structure. Giant covalent substance's atoms usually form bonds with more than 1 other atom(eg each silicon or diamond(carbon)atom joins to 4 other. each graphite atom joins 3 other. In SiO2, each Silicon atom joins 4 Oxygen atom,while each oxygen joins 2).Giant covalent is usually a 3D network and its mp and bp (>1000°C) are often much higher than macromolecular(~300-600°C). In macromolecular, the structure is basically more like a linear chain of atoms with branches instead of a 3D network. It is a big difference. Maybe consider not mixing them together?榎本徑 (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is true that most (though not all) authors distinguish macromolecular and giant covalent. And I agree that this distinction will be useful to many readers so I will mention the difference in the Covalent structures section. Also I don't think there is any unanimity about three types (as the article now says) or four types (if giant covalent is added), so I will just say several types. Dirac66 (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does the literature actually call these "giant covalent", or is that just a lay-language description for Network covalent bonding? DMacks (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about network covalent which does sound more scientific and more clearly excludes chain macromolecules. A fast Google search gives 17 900 hits for "giant covalent" and "10 900" for "network covalent". More technical papers I suspect would more often favor "network covalent" though I haven't checked. So I think it is best to mention both names, with network covalent first as it is clearer and also corresponds to the name of another article. Dirac66 (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The kind of material is "network solid" (a redirect), focusing on the overall structure and properties rather than the facts of the bonds within it. That's another >50K google hits. DMacks (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Hyperlink to Wikipedia article on Metallic bonding

In the second paragraph, where the types of covalent bond are listed, each type includes a hyperlink to the appropriate Wikipedia page except the words "Metal-to-Metal bonding". I cannot add the edit myself since this page is locked, would someone can please hyperlink the text "Metal-to-Metal bonding" at the beginning of the second paragraph to the article at: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_bonding

Thank you! 

Pharcsa (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dirac66 (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum mechanical description move to Chemical bonding model article

As there seems to be an article that specializes in talking about Valence bond theory and Molecular orbital theory (Chemical bonding model), I have decided to move the section there with a brief introduction here.--Officer781 (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Moved back and converted chemical bonding model to a disambiguation.--Officer781 (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one calls covalent bonds “molecular bonds”, and no one should. Please remove this erroneous statement given in the first sentence of this article.

This article states that covalent bonds are “also called…molecular bonds”. This is not common terminology and I cannot find any reputable source which uses it. The IUPAC gold book (and every other colored IUPAC book) has no mention of it. Moreover, it is a gross misnomer, as a “molecular bond” implies a bond between molecules, i.e. it is an intermolecular-bond, such as hydrogen bonding or pi-pi interactions between neighboring molecules. Whereas covalent bonds are explicitly intramolecular-bonds, and are never (correctly) referred to as “molecular bonds”. If there is no citation for who calls these molecular bonds, this should be removed to avoid father confusion for new chemists, which is recurring due to this inaccuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilbert N. Lewis (talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diborane: Electron deficient or not? (conflicting information)

This page uses diborane as an example of an electron deficient compound, while the main Wikipedia page on electron deficiency explicitly states it is not. I do not have enough knowledge of the matter to decide which is true, but this conflicting information should be corrected by someone who does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurplePandoran (talk • contribs) 15:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diborane has always been described as an electron deficient compound because there are 4 "bonds" in the central ring and only 4 electrons. more recently it has been seen as perfectly normal, but the "electron deficient" tag remains. It depends how you define "electron deficient". --Bduke (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic to be clear and proper

Can u clearly write in the details what exactly you are trying to explain . 151.82.108.55 (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify exactly what you are asking? --Bduke (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unneeded information

paragraph two of the history section mentions that Gilbert N Lewis also coined the term photon, why is this here? this adds nothing to the article; it's just information about a person important to the subject. I am an inexperienced editor, but this seemed appropriate to bring up, correct me if it is wrong to do so. ~2025-39318-21 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.