• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

• Work with all your cloud files (Drive, Dropbox, and Slack and Gmail attachments) and documents (Google Docs, Sheets, and Notion) in one place. Try Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) for free. Now available on the web, Mac, Windows, and as a Chrome extension!

View

# Chemical bonding

last edited by 10 years ago

Prerequisites

 In our discussion of Atomic and Molecular forces we learned that the typical potential energy between two atoms includes two parts:  an attractive part that falls off rapidly with increasing distance (proportional to 1/r6), and a repulsive part that is very short ranged and dominates when the atoms try to get too close. The commonly used Lennard-Jones model of this repulsion goes like 1/r12, so the total PE is modeled by the equation where A and B are constants whose values depend on the specific types of atoms.  To see what this looks like, you can try graphing it on a graphing calculator or spreadsheet, and experiment with different values of A and B. The shape of the PE curve looks like the graph shown in the figure at the right. At large r, the potential energy graph looks flat.  The slope is just about zero.  Thus, atoms that are far apart feel just about no force.  At small r, the graph slopes very steeply down and to the right, indicating that there is a very strong repulsive force at close range.

Since the strong positive repulsion dominates at short distances, while the longer range negative attraction dominates at longer distances, in between the graph has to turn around.  As the atoms come towards each other from far away, the potential energy slopes downward going negative, and then becomes repulsive and goes positive.  Somewhere in between, it has to reach a minimum potential energy, before going back up again.  The slope of the graph at this point is zero, so two atoms located at this distance experience no force.  The attractive and repulsive forces balance exactly.  This is a stable equilibrium:  if you move the atom away from this point in either direction, it will experience a force pushing it back towards the equilibrium point.  Therefore, atoms that have this potential energy interaction can form stable molecules!  The value of r, where the potential energy is at a minimum, tells us the bond length for that particular bond.

Here's a simulation of two atoms coming together and forming a bond.  (In this simulation, the atoms don't stay together!  Why not?  What would need to happen for them to stay together?)

 An example of a pair of atoms in a bound state is shown in the figure at the right by the heavy black line. This represents a particular case of a state of the total mechanical (kinetic plus potential) of the atoms' relative motion.   Note that the total energy of the atoms is NEGATIVE.  "Negative relative to what?", you might ask.  Relative to our "zero" potential energy, which we take to be when the atoms are far apart and at rest.  So there is LESS total mechanical energy when atoms are bonded together than when they are separated. This has two important consequences:   If atoms start out bonded together, you have to ADD energy just to get them back to "zero" potential energy, i.e. "breaking" the bond requires an input of energy. In reverse: If a bond is formed (between atoms which were previously separate), the result is less potential energy than they started with, but by the principle of conservation of energy, we know this energy had to go somewhere else (it doesn't just disappear).  Thus, when bonds are formed, energy is released. (Where does the energy go when a bond is formed?  We'll get into some answers to this question later on, but in the meantime, think about this question and try to come up with some possible answers yourself.) The Lennard-Jones potential (and the more accurate Morse potential) is only a simplified model for atom-atom interactions. When one has strong bonds where the electron orbitals are shared and even modified, a model describing the interaction as occurring between atoms is not really sufficient. A better description explicitly needs to consider the structure of the atom, separating it into a nucleus and electrons. But these potential models allow us to talk about the energy balances involved when chemical reactions happen in a simpler way. It describes the transfer of energy accurately, even if the mechanism is not quite correct.

Ben Dreyfus 10/30/11 and Joe Redish 11/17/11 #### Catherine Crouch said

at 1:48 pm on Nov 21, 2011

I think this looks good. I'd love to find out whether this direct treatment of the issue of energy and bonds actually addresses students' idea that you get energy out of breaking bonds! (I assume you're going to investigate this?) Do they connect this to the idea of ATP as energy storage?

One issue the idea of "ATP as energy storage" raises is: what does it mean to "store" energy? Are you going to get into that later?

This brings up again the question I asked on the previous page: what are you going to ask students to do with these ideas? For example, will you have them calculate where the slope of the potential is zero thus giving the location of the stable equilibrium? If not, if all they will do with this is qualitative, is it valuable to give the quantitative form of the potential?

In point 1 in the second box: might help to ask "Where does the energy come from to break a bond?" in parallel to point 2.

In the last paragraph: will they know what the "Morse potential" is or should this be explained (i.e. something like "and more accurate mathematical models for the potential, such as one called the Morse potential")