How to you show a 3-center 2-electron bond in a Lewis structure?Why doesn't TEMPO react with itself?Is Bond Formation “Strictly” Exothermic?What's the type of bonding in La@C60?How to determine the bond order using the Lewis structure?Hypervalency and the octet ruleWhich elements can be diatomic?What is the geometrical structure of Pb3O4?Why Does Coordination of Metal Ions Happen Anyways?What type of bonding is there among d-block metals?About ionic bonds (and ionic compounds)Covalency in bonding across the periodic table

What happens when I sacrifice a creature when my Teysa Karlov is on the battlefield?

Through the Looking-Glass

Should I hide continue button until tasks are completed?

Why doesn't a marching band have strings?

How to get cool night-vision without lame drawbacks?

Does ultrasonic bath cleaning damage laboratory volumetric glassware calibration?

Smooth Julia set for quadratic polynomials

What do you call a weak person's act of taking on bigger opponents?

Go Get the Six Six-Pack

How to append a matrix element by element

When is it ok to add filler to a story?

Does Marvel have an equivalent of the Green Lantern?

Can the US president have someone sent to jail?

How dangerous are set-size assumptions?

Why is the Turkish president's surname spelt in Russian as Эрдоган, with г?

How come I was asked by a CBP officer why I was in the US?

Did Karl Marx ever use any example that involved cotton and dollars to illustrate the way capital and surplus value were generated?

Does anycast addressing add additional latency in any way?

Is there a maximum distance from a planet that a moon can orbit?

Why is Madam Hooch not a professor?

5 cars in a roundabout traffic

Why do some professors with PhDs leave their professorships to teach high school?

Cascading Repair Costs following Blown Head Gasket on a 2004 Subaru Outback

What kind of wire should I use to pigtail an outlet?



How to you show a 3-center 2-electron bond in a Lewis structure?


Why doesn't TEMPO react with itself?Is Bond Formation “Strictly” Exothermic?What's the type of bonding in La@C60?How to determine the bond order using the Lewis structure?Hypervalency and the octet ruleWhich elements can be diatomic?What is the geometrical structure of Pb3O4?Why Does Coordination of Metal Ions Happen Anyways?What type of bonding is there among d-block metals?About ionic bonds (and ionic compounds)Covalency in bonding across the periodic table






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








9












$begingroup$


How would you write $cePCl5$ or other hyper-conjugate molecules as a Lewis structure that indicates 3-center 2-electron bonds?



I have seen depictions [1] for transition metal complexes but not for main group non-metals such as sulfur or phosphorous.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    With dashed lines but in some structures I am puzzled, too.
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    Jun 7 at 14:25






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I started writing an answer, but realized I was rambling, and it was probably better as a comment. My opinion is that Lewis structures are too focused on 2-center-2-electron bonds to easily depict anything else. I feel like in practice, you draw everything as a electron pair and rely on reader experience to detect when things are 3-center-2-electron bonds.
    $endgroup$
    – Zhe
    Jun 7 at 18:58










  • $begingroup$
    I had troubles to convey 3c-2e in TEMPO (in conjunction with a big number of hyperconjugation mesomers) to explain the long life of it in an old threat. And still have them.
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    Jun 8 at 10:41











  • $begingroup$
    @Alchimista - TEMPO? Oh, I see: chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/90993
    $endgroup$
    – Karsten Theis
    Jun 8 at 10:49






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    As a general comment, it's clear that the conventions for Lewis structures that have accumulated over the years are are not internally consistent, but are so well-established that it's too late to change. For example, in second row oxides like $ceHNO3$, octet rule wins over "minimize formal charge", but in the third row, expanded octet is preferred over adding formal charge, as in $ceH3PO4$. For more complex bonding interactions like the two $pi$ half-bonds in $ceO2$, Lewis structures are completely inadequate.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew
    Jun 8 at 12:12

















9












$begingroup$


How would you write $cePCl5$ or other hyper-conjugate molecules as a Lewis structure that indicates 3-center 2-electron bonds?



I have seen depictions [1] for transition metal complexes but not for main group non-metals such as sulfur or phosphorous.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    With dashed lines but in some structures I am puzzled, too.
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    Jun 7 at 14:25






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I started writing an answer, but realized I was rambling, and it was probably better as a comment. My opinion is that Lewis structures are too focused on 2-center-2-electron bonds to easily depict anything else. I feel like in practice, you draw everything as a electron pair and rely on reader experience to detect when things are 3-center-2-electron bonds.
    $endgroup$
    – Zhe
    Jun 7 at 18:58










  • $begingroup$
    I had troubles to convey 3c-2e in TEMPO (in conjunction with a big number of hyperconjugation mesomers) to explain the long life of it in an old threat. And still have them.
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    Jun 8 at 10:41











  • $begingroup$
    @Alchimista - TEMPO? Oh, I see: chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/90993
    $endgroup$
    – Karsten Theis
    Jun 8 at 10:49






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    As a general comment, it's clear that the conventions for Lewis structures that have accumulated over the years are are not internally consistent, but are so well-established that it's too late to change. For example, in second row oxides like $ceHNO3$, octet rule wins over "minimize formal charge", but in the third row, expanded octet is preferred over adding formal charge, as in $ceH3PO4$. For more complex bonding interactions like the two $pi$ half-bonds in $ceO2$, Lewis structures are completely inadequate.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew
    Jun 8 at 12:12













9












9








9





$begingroup$


How would you write $cePCl5$ or other hyper-conjugate molecules as a Lewis structure that indicates 3-center 2-electron bonds?



I have seen depictions [1] for transition metal complexes but not for main group non-metals such as sulfur or phosphorous.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




How would you write $cePCl5$ or other hyper-conjugate molecules as a Lewis structure that indicates 3-center 2-electron bonds?



I have seen depictions [1] for transition metal complexes but not for main group non-metals such as sulfur or phosphorous.







bond notation






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jun 7 at 14:31







Karsten Theis

















asked Jun 7 at 13:29









Karsten TheisKarsten Theis

7,30810 silver badges51 bronze badges




7,30810 silver badges51 bronze badges







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    With dashed lines but in some structures I am puzzled, too.
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    Jun 7 at 14:25






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I started writing an answer, but realized I was rambling, and it was probably better as a comment. My opinion is that Lewis structures are too focused on 2-center-2-electron bonds to easily depict anything else. I feel like in practice, you draw everything as a electron pair and rely on reader experience to detect when things are 3-center-2-electron bonds.
    $endgroup$
    – Zhe
    Jun 7 at 18:58










  • $begingroup$
    I had troubles to convey 3c-2e in TEMPO (in conjunction with a big number of hyperconjugation mesomers) to explain the long life of it in an old threat. And still have them.
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    Jun 8 at 10:41











  • $begingroup$
    @Alchimista - TEMPO? Oh, I see: chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/90993
    $endgroup$
    – Karsten Theis
    Jun 8 at 10:49






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    As a general comment, it's clear that the conventions for Lewis structures that have accumulated over the years are are not internally consistent, but are so well-established that it's too late to change. For example, in second row oxides like $ceHNO3$, octet rule wins over "minimize formal charge", but in the third row, expanded octet is preferred over adding formal charge, as in $ceH3PO4$. For more complex bonding interactions like the two $pi$ half-bonds in $ceO2$, Lewis structures are completely inadequate.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew
    Jun 8 at 12:12












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    With dashed lines but in some structures I am puzzled, too.
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    Jun 7 at 14:25






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I started writing an answer, but realized I was rambling, and it was probably better as a comment. My opinion is that Lewis structures are too focused on 2-center-2-electron bonds to easily depict anything else. I feel like in practice, you draw everything as a electron pair and rely on reader experience to detect when things are 3-center-2-electron bonds.
    $endgroup$
    – Zhe
    Jun 7 at 18:58










  • $begingroup$
    I had troubles to convey 3c-2e in TEMPO (in conjunction with a big number of hyperconjugation mesomers) to explain the long life of it in an old threat. And still have them.
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    Jun 8 at 10:41











  • $begingroup$
    @Alchimista - TEMPO? Oh, I see: chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/90993
    $endgroup$
    – Karsten Theis
    Jun 8 at 10:49






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    As a general comment, it's clear that the conventions for Lewis structures that have accumulated over the years are are not internally consistent, but are so well-established that it's too late to change. For example, in second row oxides like $ceHNO3$, octet rule wins over "minimize formal charge", but in the third row, expanded octet is preferred over adding formal charge, as in $ceH3PO4$. For more complex bonding interactions like the two $pi$ half-bonds in $ceO2$, Lewis structures are completely inadequate.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew
    Jun 8 at 12:12







2




2




$begingroup$
With dashed lines but in some structures I am puzzled, too.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
Jun 7 at 14:25




$begingroup$
With dashed lines but in some structures I am puzzled, too.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
Jun 7 at 14:25




3




3




$begingroup$
I started writing an answer, but realized I was rambling, and it was probably better as a comment. My opinion is that Lewis structures are too focused on 2-center-2-electron bonds to easily depict anything else. I feel like in practice, you draw everything as a electron pair and rely on reader experience to detect when things are 3-center-2-electron bonds.
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Jun 7 at 18:58




$begingroup$
I started writing an answer, but realized I was rambling, and it was probably better as a comment. My opinion is that Lewis structures are too focused on 2-center-2-electron bonds to easily depict anything else. I feel like in practice, you draw everything as a electron pair and rely on reader experience to detect when things are 3-center-2-electron bonds.
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Jun 7 at 18:58












$begingroup$
I had troubles to convey 3c-2e in TEMPO (in conjunction with a big number of hyperconjugation mesomers) to explain the long life of it in an old threat. And still have them.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
Jun 8 at 10:41





$begingroup$
I had troubles to convey 3c-2e in TEMPO (in conjunction with a big number of hyperconjugation mesomers) to explain the long life of it in an old threat. And still have them.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
Jun 8 at 10:41













$begingroup$
@Alchimista - TEMPO? Oh, I see: chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/90993
$endgroup$
– Karsten Theis
Jun 8 at 10:49




$begingroup$
@Alchimista - TEMPO? Oh, I see: chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/90993
$endgroup$
– Karsten Theis
Jun 8 at 10:49




2




2




$begingroup$
As a general comment, it's clear that the conventions for Lewis structures that have accumulated over the years are are not internally consistent, but are so well-established that it's too late to change. For example, in second row oxides like $ceHNO3$, octet rule wins over "minimize formal charge", but in the third row, expanded octet is preferred over adding formal charge, as in $ceH3PO4$. For more complex bonding interactions like the two $pi$ half-bonds in $ceO2$, Lewis structures are completely inadequate.
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jun 8 at 12:12




$begingroup$
As a general comment, it's clear that the conventions for Lewis structures that have accumulated over the years are are not internally consistent, but are so well-established that it's too late to change. For example, in second row oxides like $ceHNO3$, octet rule wins over "minimize formal charge", but in the third row, expanded octet is preferred over adding formal charge, as in $ceH3PO4$. For more complex bonding interactions like the two $pi$ half-bonds in $ceO2$, Lewis structures are completely inadequate.
$endgroup$
– Andrew
Jun 8 at 12:12










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















9












$begingroup$

What about the probably "not so good" approach might be the bent bond as sometimes seen for diborane?



enter image description here



(source)



The latest recommendation by IUPAC I know, exemplified in rule "GR-1.9 Multi-center bonds":



enter image description here



(Brecher, Pure Appl. Chem., 80, 277-410, 2008; doi 10.1351/pac200880020277, open access)



stating:




"As a matter of convention, any such multi-center character is ignored
when producing chemical structure diagrams, and regular bonds
connecting pairs of atoms are used instead."





To accommodate Karsten Theis' comment on the initial form of this answer, I would like to add the perspective provided by Robert Grossmann's The Art of Writing Reasonable Organic Reaction Mechanisms. Starting page 270 (2nd edition, 2003) the chapter introducing reactions with transition metals draws attention about "Conventions of Drawing Structures"; highlighting that there are field dependent conventions about what line and dash represent. To quote:




"The conventions for drawing organometallic and inorganic compounds
differ in subtle ways from those used to draw “ordinary” organic
compounds. The most important difference is the way in which bonds are
drawn. In organic compounds, one does not use a line to connect a bond
to an atom. In organometallic and inorganic compounds, however, a line
sometimes connects an atom and a $sigma$ or $pi$ bond. In this
case, the line indicates that the pair of electrons in the $sigma$ or
$pi$ bond is shared with the metal also."




enter image description here
(loc. cit. p. 271)




"An even more confusing situation arises in complexes in which the
electrons in a $pi$ system spread over three or more atoms are used
to make a bond to a metal. In this case, the usual convention is to
use a curved line to indicate the $pi$ system and a single line to
connect the $pi$ system to the metal, regardless of the number of
electrons in the $pi$ system (the organometallic chemists’
convention). However, sometimes the curved line is omitted and single
lines are used to connect the metal to each of the atoms in the $pi$
system (the crystallographers’ convention). The representation that
would make the most sense to organic chemists, in which a single line
represents a two-electron bond and a dative bond is used to show
two-electron bonds between each individual $ceC=C$ $pi$ bond and
the metal, is simply never used."




enter image description here
(loc. cit., p. 271)




"Formal charges are usually omitted in inorganic and organometallic
complexes. Only the overall charge on the complex is indicated. For
example, formal charges are usually not assigned in Lewis acid–base
complexes involving transition metals. The acid–base bond is sometimes
indicated by an arrow pointing from the ligand to the metal, but more
often it is indicated by an ordinary line."




enter image description here
(loc. cit., p. 271)



This precedes just the section about electron counting (specifically in organometallic compounds with transition metals). I speculate, however, Robert Grossman aiming to highlight differences between "organic" and "organometallic" convention meant does while accidentally deploying does not in the first paragraph.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    For the diborane, if you count 2 electrons per line representing a bond, one structure has the correct electron count and the other (the IUPAC-preferred) doesn't. If you don't expect 2e-3c bonds, this might trip you up. I guess it's the same for coordination compounds.
    $endgroup$
    – Karsten Theis
    Jun 8 at 9:42











  • $begingroup$
    @KarstenTheis Thanks to your comment, the perspective provided by the answer was enlarged.
    $endgroup$
    – Buttonwood
    Jun 8 at 11:21













Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "431"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f116519%2fhow-to-you-show-a-3-center-2-electron-bond-in-a-lewis-structure%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









9












$begingroup$

What about the probably "not so good" approach might be the bent bond as sometimes seen for diborane?



enter image description here



(source)



The latest recommendation by IUPAC I know, exemplified in rule "GR-1.9 Multi-center bonds":



enter image description here



(Brecher, Pure Appl. Chem., 80, 277-410, 2008; doi 10.1351/pac200880020277, open access)



stating:




"As a matter of convention, any such multi-center character is ignored
when producing chemical structure diagrams, and regular bonds
connecting pairs of atoms are used instead."





To accommodate Karsten Theis' comment on the initial form of this answer, I would like to add the perspective provided by Robert Grossmann's The Art of Writing Reasonable Organic Reaction Mechanisms. Starting page 270 (2nd edition, 2003) the chapter introducing reactions with transition metals draws attention about "Conventions of Drawing Structures"; highlighting that there are field dependent conventions about what line and dash represent. To quote:




"The conventions for drawing organometallic and inorganic compounds
differ in subtle ways from those used to draw “ordinary” organic
compounds. The most important difference is the way in which bonds are
drawn. In organic compounds, one does not use a line to connect a bond
to an atom. In organometallic and inorganic compounds, however, a line
sometimes connects an atom and a $sigma$ or $pi$ bond. In this
case, the line indicates that the pair of electrons in the $sigma$ or
$pi$ bond is shared with the metal also."




enter image description here
(loc. cit. p. 271)




"An even more confusing situation arises in complexes in which the
electrons in a $pi$ system spread over three or more atoms are used
to make a bond to a metal. In this case, the usual convention is to
use a curved line to indicate the $pi$ system and a single line to
connect the $pi$ system to the metal, regardless of the number of
electrons in the $pi$ system (the organometallic chemists’
convention). However, sometimes the curved line is omitted and single
lines are used to connect the metal to each of the atoms in the $pi$
system (the crystallographers’ convention). The representation that
would make the most sense to organic chemists, in which a single line
represents a two-electron bond and a dative bond is used to show
two-electron bonds between each individual $ceC=C$ $pi$ bond and
the metal, is simply never used."




enter image description here
(loc. cit., p. 271)




"Formal charges are usually omitted in inorganic and organometallic
complexes. Only the overall charge on the complex is indicated. For
example, formal charges are usually not assigned in Lewis acid–base
complexes involving transition metals. The acid–base bond is sometimes
indicated by an arrow pointing from the ligand to the metal, but more
often it is indicated by an ordinary line."




enter image description here
(loc. cit., p. 271)



This precedes just the section about electron counting (specifically in organometallic compounds with transition metals). I speculate, however, Robert Grossman aiming to highlight differences between "organic" and "organometallic" convention meant does while accidentally deploying does not in the first paragraph.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    For the diborane, if you count 2 electrons per line representing a bond, one structure has the correct electron count and the other (the IUPAC-preferred) doesn't. If you don't expect 2e-3c bonds, this might trip you up. I guess it's the same for coordination compounds.
    $endgroup$
    – Karsten Theis
    Jun 8 at 9:42











  • $begingroup$
    @KarstenTheis Thanks to your comment, the perspective provided by the answer was enlarged.
    $endgroup$
    – Buttonwood
    Jun 8 at 11:21















9












$begingroup$

What about the probably "not so good" approach might be the bent bond as sometimes seen for diborane?



enter image description here



(source)



The latest recommendation by IUPAC I know, exemplified in rule "GR-1.9 Multi-center bonds":



enter image description here



(Brecher, Pure Appl. Chem., 80, 277-410, 2008; doi 10.1351/pac200880020277, open access)



stating:




"As a matter of convention, any such multi-center character is ignored
when producing chemical structure diagrams, and regular bonds
connecting pairs of atoms are used instead."





To accommodate Karsten Theis' comment on the initial form of this answer, I would like to add the perspective provided by Robert Grossmann's The Art of Writing Reasonable Organic Reaction Mechanisms. Starting page 270 (2nd edition, 2003) the chapter introducing reactions with transition metals draws attention about "Conventions of Drawing Structures"; highlighting that there are field dependent conventions about what line and dash represent. To quote:




"The conventions for drawing organometallic and inorganic compounds
differ in subtle ways from those used to draw “ordinary” organic
compounds. The most important difference is the way in which bonds are
drawn. In organic compounds, one does not use a line to connect a bond
to an atom. In organometallic and inorganic compounds, however, a line
sometimes connects an atom and a $sigma$ or $pi$ bond. In this
case, the line indicates that the pair of electrons in the $sigma$ or
$pi$ bond is shared with the metal also."




enter image description here
(loc. cit. p. 271)




"An even more confusing situation arises in complexes in which the
electrons in a $pi$ system spread over three or more atoms are used
to make a bond to a metal. In this case, the usual convention is to
use a curved line to indicate the $pi$ system and a single line to
connect the $pi$ system to the metal, regardless of the number of
electrons in the $pi$ system (the organometallic chemists’
convention). However, sometimes the curved line is omitted and single
lines are used to connect the metal to each of the atoms in the $pi$
system (the crystallographers’ convention). The representation that
would make the most sense to organic chemists, in which a single line
represents a two-electron bond and a dative bond is used to show
two-electron bonds between each individual $ceC=C$ $pi$ bond and
the metal, is simply never used."




enter image description here
(loc. cit., p. 271)




"Formal charges are usually omitted in inorganic and organometallic
complexes. Only the overall charge on the complex is indicated. For
example, formal charges are usually not assigned in Lewis acid–base
complexes involving transition metals. The acid–base bond is sometimes
indicated by an arrow pointing from the ligand to the metal, but more
often it is indicated by an ordinary line."




enter image description here
(loc. cit., p. 271)



This precedes just the section about electron counting (specifically in organometallic compounds with transition metals). I speculate, however, Robert Grossman aiming to highlight differences between "organic" and "organometallic" convention meant does while accidentally deploying does not in the first paragraph.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    For the diborane, if you count 2 electrons per line representing a bond, one structure has the correct electron count and the other (the IUPAC-preferred) doesn't. If you don't expect 2e-3c bonds, this might trip you up. I guess it's the same for coordination compounds.
    $endgroup$
    – Karsten Theis
    Jun 8 at 9:42











  • $begingroup$
    @KarstenTheis Thanks to your comment, the perspective provided by the answer was enlarged.
    $endgroup$
    – Buttonwood
    Jun 8 at 11:21













9












9








9





$begingroup$

What about the probably "not so good" approach might be the bent bond as sometimes seen for diborane?



enter image description here



(source)



The latest recommendation by IUPAC I know, exemplified in rule "GR-1.9 Multi-center bonds":



enter image description here



(Brecher, Pure Appl. Chem., 80, 277-410, 2008; doi 10.1351/pac200880020277, open access)



stating:




"As a matter of convention, any such multi-center character is ignored
when producing chemical structure diagrams, and regular bonds
connecting pairs of atoms are used instead."





To accommodate Karsten Theis' comment on the initial form of this answer, I would like to add the perspective provided by Robert Grossmann's The Art of Writing Reasonable Organic Reaction Mechanisms. Starting page 270 (2nd edition, 2003) the chapter introducing reactions with transition metals draws attention about "Conventions of Drawing Structures"; highlighting that there are field dependent conventions about what line and dash represent. To quote:




"The conventions for drawing organometallic and inorganic compounds
differ in subtle ways from those used to draw “ordinary” organic
compounds. The most important difference is the way in which bonds are
drawn. In organic compounds, one does not use a line to connect a bond
to an atom. In organometallic and inorganic compounds, however, a line
sometimes connects an atom and a $sigma$ or $pi$ bond. In this
case, the line indicates that the pair of electrons in the $sigma$ or
$pi$ bond is shared with the metal also."




enter image description here
(loc. cit. p. 271)




"An even more confusing situation arises in complexes in which the
electrons in a $pi$ system spread over three or more atoms are used
to make a bond to a metal. In this case, the usual convention is to
use a curved line to indicate the $pi$ system and a single line to
connect the $pi$ system to the metal, regardless of the number of
electrons in the $pi$ system (the organometallic chemists’
convention). However, sometimes the curved line is omitted and single
lines are used to connect the metal to each of the atoms in the $pi$
system (the crystallographers’ convention). The representation that
would make the most sense to organic chemists, in which a single line
represents a two-electron bond and a dative bond is used to show
two-electron bonds between each individual $ceC=C$ $pi$ bond and
the metal, is simply never used."




enter image description here
(loc. cit., p. 271)




"Formal charges are usually omitted in inorganic and organometallic
complexes. Only the overall charge on the complex is indicated. For
example, formal charges are usually not assigned in Lewis acid–base
complexes involving transition metals. The acid–base bond is sometimes
indicated by an arrow pointing from the ligand to the metal, but more
often it is indicated by an ordinary line."




enter image description here
(loc. cit., p. 271)



This precedes just the section about electron counting (specifically in organometallic compounds with transition metals). I speculate, however, Robert Grossman aiming to highlight differences between "organic" and "organometallic" convention meant does while accidentally deploying does not in the first paragraph.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



What about the probably "not so good" approach might be the bent bond as sometimes seen for diborane?



enter image description here



(source)



The latest recommendation by IUPAC I know, exemplified in rule "GR-1.9 Multi-center bonds":



enter image description here



(Brecher, Pure Appl. Chem., 80, 277-410, 2008; doi 10.1351/pac200880020277, open access)



stating:




"As a matter of convention, any such multi-center character is ignored
when producing chemical structure diagrams, and regular bonds
connecting pairs of atoms are used instead."





To accommodate Karsten Theis' comment on the initial form of this answer, I would like to add the perspective provided by Robert Grossmann's The Art of Writing Reasonable Organic Reaction Mechanisms. Starting page 270 (2nd edition, 2003) the chapter introducing reactions with transition metals draws attention about "Conventions of Drawing Structures"; highlighting that there are field dependent conventions about what line and dash represent. To quote:




"The conventions for drawing organometallic and inorganic compounds
differ in subtle ways from those used to draw “ordinary” organic
compounds. The most important difference is the way in which bonds are
drawn. In organic compounds, one does not use a line to connect a bond
to an atom. In organometallic and inorganic compounds, however, a line
sometimes connects an atom and a $sigma$ or $pi$ bond. In this
case, the line indicates that the pair of electrons in the $sigma$ or
$pi$ bond is shared with the metal also."




enter image description here
(loc. cit. p. 271)




"An even more confusing situation arises in complexes in which the
electrons in a $pi$ system spread over three or more atoms are used
to make a bond to a metal. In this case, the usual convention is to
use a curved line to indicate the $pi$ system and a single line to
connect the $pi$ system to the metal, regardless of the number of
electrons in the $pi$ system (the organometallic chemists’
convention). However, sometimes the curved line is omitted and single
lines are used to connect the metal to each of the atoms in the $pi$
system (the crystallographers’ convention). The representation that
would make the most sense to organic chemists, in which a single line
represents a two-electron bond and a dative bond is used to show
two-electron bonds between each individual $ceC=C$ $pi$ bond and
the metal, is simply never used."




enter image description here
(loc. cit., p. 271)




"Formal charges are usually omitted in inorganic and organometallic
complexes. Only the overall charge on the complex is indicated. For
example, formal charges are usually not assigned in Lewis acid–base
complexes involving transition metals. The acid–base bond is sometimes
indicated by an arrow pointing from the ligand to the metal, but more
often it is indicated by an ordinary line."




enter image description here
(loc. cit., p. 271)



This precedes just the section about electron counting (specifically in organometallic compounds with transition metals). I speculate, however, Robert Grossman aiming to highlight differences between "organic" and "organometallic" convention meant does while accidentally deploying does not in the first paragraph.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Jun 8 at 11:09

























answered Jun 7 at 17:32









ButtonwoodButtonwood

10.2k1 gold badge22 silver badges45 bronze badges




10.2k1 gold badge22 silver badges45 bronze badges







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    For the diborane, if you count 2 electrons per line representing a bond, one structure has the correct electron count and the other (the IUPAC-preferred) doesn't. If you don't expect 2e-3c bonds, this might trip you up. I guess it's the same for coordination compounds.
    $endgroup$
    – Karsten Theis
    Jun 8 at 9:42











  • $begingroup$
    @KarstenTheis Thanks to your comment, the perspective provided by the answer was enlarged.
    $endgroup$
    – Buttonwood
    Jun 8 at 11:21












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    For the diborane, if you count 2 electrons per line representing a bond, one structure has the correct electron count and the other (the IUPAC-preferred) doesn't. If you don't expect 2e-3c bonds, this might trip you up. I guess it's the same for coordination compounds.
    $endgroup$
    – Karsten Theis
    Jun 8 at 9:42











  • $begingroup$
    @KarstenTheis Thanks to your comment, the perspective provided by the answer was enlarged.
    $endgroup$
    – Buttonwood
    Jun 8 at 11:21







2




2




$begingroup$
For the diborane, if you count 2 electrons per line representing a bond, one structure has the correct electron count and the other (the IUPAC-preferred) doesn't. If you don't expect 2e-3c bonds, this might trip you up. I guess it's the same for coordination compounds.
$endgroup$
– Karsten Theis
Jun 8 at 9:42





$begingroup$
For the diborane, if you count 2 electrons per line representing a bond, one structure has the correct electron count and the other (the IUPAC-preferred) doesn't. If you don't expect 2e-3c bonds, this might trip you up. I guess it's the same for coordination compounds.
$endgroup$
– Karsten Theis
Jun 8 at 9:42













$begingroup$
@KarstenTheis Thanks to your comment, the perspective provided by the answer was enlarged.
$endgroup$
– Buttonwood
Jun 8 at 11:21




$begingroup$
@KarstenTheis Thanks to your comment, the perspective provided by the answer was enlarged.
$endgroup$
– Buttonwood
Jun 8 at 11:21

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Chemistry Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f116519%2fhow-to-you-show-a-3-center-2-electron-bond-in-a-lewis-structure%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Club Baloncesto Breogán Índice Historia | Pavillón | Nome | O Breogán na cultura popular | Xogadores | Adestradores | Presidentes | Palmarés | Historial | Líderes | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióncbbreogan.galCadroGuía oficial da ACB 2009-10, páxina 201Guía oficial ACB 1992, páxina 183. Editorial DB.É de 6.500 espectadores sentados axeitándose á última normativa"Estudiantes Junior, entre as mellores canteiras"o orixinalHemeroteca El Mundo Deportivo, 16 setembro de 1970, páxina 12Historia do BreogánAlfredo Pérez, o último canoneiroHistoria C.B. BreogánHemeroteca de El Mundo DeportivoJimmy Wright, norteamericano do Breogán deixará Lugo por ameazas de morteResultados de Breogán en 1986-87Resultados de Breogán en 1990-91Ficha de Velimir Perasović en acb.comResultados de Breogán en 1994-95Breogán arrasa al Barça. "El Mundo Deportivo", 27 de setembro de 1999, páxina 58CB Breogán - FC BarcelonaA FEB invita a participar nunha nova Liga EuropeaCharlie Bell na prensa estatalMáximos anotadores 2005Tempada 2005-06 : Tódolos Xogadores da Xornada""Non quero pensar nunha man negra, mais pregúntome que está a pasar""o orixinalRaúl López, orgulloso dos xogadores, presume da boa saúde económica do BreogánJulio González confirma que cesa como presidente del BreogánHomenaxe a Lisardo GómezA tempada do rexurdimento celesteEntrevista a Lisardo GómezEl COB dinamita el Pazo para forzar el quinto (69-73)Cafés Candelas, patrocinador del CB Breogán"Suso Lázare, novo presidente do Breogán"o orixinalCafés Candelas Breogán firma el mayor triunfo de la historiaEl Breogán realizará 17 homenajes por su cincuenta aniversario"O Breogán honra ao seu fundador e primeiro presidente"o orixinalMiguel Giao recibiu a homenaxe do PazoHomenaxe aos primeiros gladiadores celestesO home que nos amosa como ver o Breo co corazónTita Franco será homenaxeada polos #50anosdeBreoJulio Vila recibirá unha homenaxe in memoriam polos #50anosdeBreo"O Breogán homenaxeará aos seus aboados máis veteráns"Pechada ovación a «Capi» Sanmartín e Ricardo «Corazón de González»Homenaxe por décadas de informaciónPaco García volve ao Pazo con motivo do 50 aniversario"Resultados y clasificaciones""O Cafés Candelas Breogán, campión da Copa Princesa""O Cafés Candelas Breogán, equipo ACB"C.B. Breogán"Proxecto social"o orixinal"Centros asociados"o orixinalFicha en imdb.comMario Camus trata la recuperación del amor en 'La vieja música', su última película"Páxina web oficial""Club Baloncesto Breogán""C. B. Breogán S.A.D."eehttp://www.fegaba.com

Vilaño, A Laracha Índice Patrimonio | Lugares e parroquias | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegación43°14′52″N 8°36′03″O / 43.24775, -8.60070

Cegueira Índice Epidemioloxía | Deficiencia visual | Tipos de cegueira | Principais causas de cegueira | Tratamento | Técnicas de adaptación e axudas | Vida dos cegos | Primeiros auxilios | Crenzas respecto das persoas cegas | Crenzas das persoas cegas | O neno deficiente visual | Aspectos psicolóxicos da cegueira | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegación54.054.154.436928256blindnessDicionario da Real Academia GalegaPortal das Palabras"International Standards: Visual Standards — Aspects and Ranges of Vision Loss with Emphasis on Population Surveys.""Visual impairment and blindness""Presentan un plan para previr a cegueira"o orixinalACCDV Associació Catalana de Cecs i Disminuïts Visuals - PMFTrachoma"Effect of gene therapy on visual function in Leber's congenital amaurosis"1844137110.1056/NEJMoa0802268Cans guía - os mellores amigos dos cegosArquivadoEscola de cans guía para cegos en Mortágua, PortugalArquivado"Tecnología para ciegos y deficientes visuales. Recopilación de recursos gratuitos en la Red""Colorino""‘COL.diesis’, escuchar los sonidos del color""COL.diesis: Transforming Colour into Melody and Implementing the Result in a Colour Sensor Device"o orixinal"Sistema de desarrollo de sinestesia color-sonido para invidentes utilizando un protocolo de audio""Enseñanza táctil - geometría y color. Juegos didácticos para niños ciegos y videntes""Sistema Constanz"L'ocupació laboral dels cecs a l'Estat espanyol està pràcticament equiparada a la de les persones amb visió, entrevista amb Pedro ZuritaONCE (Organización Nacional de Cegos de España)Prevención da cegueiraDescrición de deficiencias visuais (Disc@pnet)Braillín, un boneco atractivo para calquera neno, con ou sen discapacidade, que permite familiarizarse co sistema de escritura e lectura brailleAxudas Técnicas36838ID00897494007150-90057129528256DOID:1432HP:0000618D001766C10.597.751.941.162C97109C0155020