This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The article mentions that ozone does not have an octet...does this refer to one of the less stable resonance structures? I am assuming this is the case for carbon monoxide.-- GregRM 19:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
http://elftor.com/elftor.php?number=189 he just made it up without knowing that it exists, right? -- Ruben 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Could anyone list a sound physical reason why atoms tend to react until their valence shell is full? I know I understood this once, probably after taking an QM class years ago, but I can't remember or find this information. -- User:67.169.18.217 (talk) 1 July 2006
The article starts of well by saying the octet rule is a rule of thumb (i.e. not an explanation). But then, phrases like "A consequence of the octet rule" ruin the article for me. The rule is not based on physics but rather empirical observations. One should really be considering electron affinities and ionisation energies. For this reason "an element's valence shell is full and most stable when it contains eight electrons" is simply nonsense. For a start, stable compared to what? Bcbccouk ( talk) 12:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Within the past few weeks, Bcbccouk has oversimplified the article by removing all mention of subshells. I don't think the octet rule can really be understood correctly, without understanding how subshells fit into the matter. As an example of how it doesn't work, consider the recently-introduced text "The second and third shells can contain at most 8 electrons. The third shell can contain 18 electrons." The two sentences not only contradict each other, but the problem can't be fixed by adjusting either one of the two contradictory sentences. Saying that the 3 shell can contain at most 8 electrons is incorrect, but saying that the 3 shell can contain 18 electrons gives no insight into understanding why 8 electrons in the 3 shell would be preferred. It really is helpful to bring up subshells, and explain that the 4s subshell fills before the 3d subshell.
To counter this, I am restoring the "Explanation in quantum theory" and "Exceptions" sections to what they were before Bcbccouk's first edit a few weeks ago, since I think the earlier versions of those sections, which don't shy away from discussing subshells, were better than what those sections had been edited into in recent weeks. Red Act ( talk) 00:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a real problem with the statement that PCl5 conforms to the octet rule. This claim in the "Disputed' section REQUIRES a valid reference. Why? Because you can't multiply 5 by 2 and get 8; that is: on its face, Anything bonded to 5 Cl atoms can NOT obey the Octet rule - as a matter of fact Any-one-Atom bonded to 5 ANYTHING fails since a 'bond' is, by defintion, sharing 2 electrons. Next time I am passing this way, if the offending section is not cleaned up/justified, I will remove it. ... I also have a problem with the lede that claims the rule is explicitly limited to "atoms of low (<20) atomic number". It is NOT. It often fails as At. No. increases, so what? It remains the Best 'first guess'. Upon closer reading, this whole article is a mess. It mentions a dodectet rule, but there is no such thing. (That is, unless a single reference to an article should be weighed equally with decades of references to ONLY the octet rule?) It fails COMPLETELY to provide ANY good references to any of the myriad of text books that define the rule. What happened to the old article? I know that this used to be better than this current crud. Wikipedia seems to be declining in quality. The octet rule hasn't changed for decades. We now better understand where it is applicable and where it fails, but this is the context of the Rule, not the rule itself. It is, unless things have changed dramatically since I was an undergrad (?), a SIMPLE way to sketch out the Lewis Structure of a molecule or ion. If you need to run a computational model in order to determine the sketch, then whatever you have done is not the Octet Rule. (Although may be consistent with it). To summarize, this article has lost sight of the purpose of the rule, which is PREDICTION. Abitslow ( talk) 18:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The following claim in this article is problematic: "Stable molecular radicals (e.g. nitric oxide, NO) do obtain octet configurations by means of a three-electron bond which contributes one shared and one unshared electron to the octet of each bonded atom." The Wikipedia article on "Covalent bond" adds "Another example of a molecule containing a 3-electron bond, in addition to two 2-electron bonds, is nitric oxide, NO." If the atoms (N and O) thus have 2 + 2 + 3 = 7 electrons in the bonds, there should be one non-bonding electron on the nitrogen and three non-bonding electrons on the oxygen of NO, to give them the octet. This sounds absurd. I am not sure how one can divide 11 valence electrons of NO in two octets, and there is no electron-dot diagram for NO in the article to illustrate this. Furthermore, there are no 3-electron bonds in Lewis structures. The octet rule is an expectation that the electrons in a Lewis structure can be arranged to give every p-block atom 8 e- in bonds & lone pairs. This is impossible in the Lewis structure of NO. Dmitri Goussev (Dmitry G. Gusev), Professor of Chemistry, Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA, Researcher ID: H-3775-2013.
@ Dirac66: @ Bduke: @ Alsosaid1987: Isn't noble gas configuration really just the octet rule?-- Officer781 ( talk) 07:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is a historical name used for the octet rule. As explained in the article Noble gas configuration, it was the phrase used in 1916 by Lewis and Kossel.
Support. I would agree to a merger into Octet rule, with the extra content of Noble gas configuration added to the History section, and a redirect from Noble gas configuration. Dirac66 ( talk) 20:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
This article's "History" section attributes this quote:
"During the formation of a chemical bond, atoms combine together by gaining, losing or sharing electrons in such a way that they acquire nearest noble gas configuration."
to: Lewis, Gilbert N. (1916). "The Atom and the Molecule". Journal of the American Chemical Society. 38 (4): 762–785.
However, this quote appears nowhere in that article by Lewis.
The quote could not have come from Walther Kossel's article because Kossel's article was written in German.
VexorAbVikipædia ( talk) 23:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Octet rule 119.2.125.162 ( talk) 14:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The article mentions that ozone does not have an octet...does this refer to one of the less stable resonance structures? I am assuming this is the case for carbon monoxide.-- GregRM 19:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
http://elftor.com/elftor.php?number=189 he just made it up without knowing that it exists, right? -- Ruben 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Could anyone list a sound physical reason why atoms tend to react until their valence shell is full? I know I understood this once, probably after taking an QM class years ago, but I can't remember or find this information. -- User:67.169.18.217 (talk) 1 July 2006
The article starts of well by saying the octet rule is a rule of thumb (i.e. not an explanation). But then, phrases like "A consequence of the octet rule" ruin the article for me. The rule is not based on physics but rather empirical observations. One should really be considering electron affinities and ionisation energies. For this reason "an element's valence shell is full and most stable when it contains eight electrons" is simply nonsense. For a start, stable compared to what? Bcbccouk ( talk) 12:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Within the past few weeks, Bcbccouk has oversimplified the article by removing all mention of subshells. I don't think the octet rule can really be understood correctly, without understanding how subshells fit into the matter. As an example of how it doesn't work, consider the recently-introduced text "The second and third shells can contain at most 8 electrons. The third shell can contain 18 electrons." The two sentences not only contradict each other, but the problem can't be fixed by adjusting either one of the two contradictory sentences. Saying that the 3 shell can contain at most 8 electrons is incorrect, but saying that the 3 shell can contain 18 electrons gives no insight into understanding why 8 electrons in the 3 shell would be preferred. It really is helpful to bring up subshells, and explain that the 4s subshell fills before the 3d subshell.
To counter this, I am restoring the "Explanation in quantum theory" and "Exceptions" sections to what they were before Bcbccouk's first edit a few weeks ago, since I think the earlier versions of those sections, which don't shy away from discussing subshells, were better than what those sections had been edited into in recent weeks. Red Act ( talk) 00:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a real problem with the statement that PCl5 conforms to the octet rule. This claim in the "Disputed' section REQUIRES a valid reference. Why? Because you can't multiply 5 by 2 and get 8; that is: on its face, Anything bonded to 5 Cl atoms can NOT obey the Octet rule - as a matter of fact Any-one-Atom bonded to 5 ANYTHING fails since a 'bond' is, by defintion, sharing 2 electrons. Next time I am passing this way, if the offending section is not cleaned up/justified, I will remove it. ... I also have a problem with the lede that claims the rule is explicitly limited to "atoms of low (<20) atomic number". It is NOT. It often fails as At. No. increases, so what? It remains the Best 'first guess'. Upon closer reading, this whole article is a mess. It mentions a dodectet rule, but there is no such thing. (That is, unless a single reference to an article should be weighed equally with decades of references to ONLY the octet rule?) It fails COMPLETELY to provide ANY good references to any of the myriad of text books that define the rule. What happened to the old article? I know that this used to be better than this current crud. Wikipedia seems to be declining in quality. The octet rule hasn't changed for decades. We now better understand where it is applicable and where it fails, but this is the context of the Rule, not the rule itself. It is, unless things have changed dramatically since I was an undergrad (?), a SIMPLE way to sketch out the Lewis Structure of a molecule or ion. If you need to run a computational model in order to determine the sketch, then whatever you have done is not the Octet Rule. (Although may be consistent with it). To summarize, this article has lost sight of the purpose of the rule, which is PREDICTION. Abitslow ( talk) 18:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The following claim in this article is problematic: "Stable molecular radicals (e.g. nitric oxide, NO) do obtain octet configurations by means of a three-electron bond which contributes one shared and one unshared electron to the octet of each bonded atom." The Wikipedia article on "Covalent bond" adds "Another example of a molecule containing a 3-electron bond, in addition to two 2-electron bonds, is nitric oxide, NO." If the atoms (N and O) thus have 2 + 2 + 3 = 7 electrons in the bonds, there should be one non-bonding electron on the nitrogen and three non-bonding electrons on the oxygen of NO, to give them the octet. This sounds absurd. I am not sure how one can divide 11 valence electrons of NO in two octets, and there is no electron-dot diagram for NO in the article to illustrate this. Furthermore, there are no 3-electron bonds in Lewis structures. The octet rule is an expectation that the electrons in a Lewis structure can be arranged to give every p-block atom 8 e- in bonds & lone pairs. This is impossible in the Lewis structure of NO. Dmitri Goussev (Dmitry G. Gusev), Professor of Chemistry, Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA, Researcher ID: H-3775-2013.
@ Dirac66: @ Bduke: @ Alsosaid1987: Isn't noble gas configuration really just the octet rule?-- Officer781 ( talk) 07:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is a historical name used for the octet rule. As explained in the article Noble gas configuration, it was the phrase used in 1916 by Lewis and Kossel.
Support. I would agree to a merger into Octet rule, with the extra content of Noble gas configuration added to the History section, and a redirect from Noble gas configuration. Dirac66 ( talk) 20:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
This article's "History" section attributes this quote:
"During the formation of a chemical bond, atoms combine together by gaining, losing or sharing electrons in such a way that they acquire nearest noble gas configuration."
to: Lewis, Gilbert N. (1916). "The Atom and the Molecule". Journal of the American Chemical Society. 38 (4): 762–785.
However, this quote appears nowhere in that article by Lewis.
The quote could not have come from Walther Kossel's article because Kossel's article was written in German.
VexorAbVikipædia ( talk) 23:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Octet rule 119.2.125.162 ( talk) 14:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)