C-H bonds are considered nonpolar. This is because the electronegativity of C is 2.5 and the of H is 2.1, putting their electronegativity in the nonpolar range. O-H bonds are more polar than N-H bonds. This is because the O-H bond is more electronegative because the electronegativity of O is 3.44 while the electronegativity of N is only 3.04. I2(s) → I2(l) London Dispersion Forces H2O(s) → H2O(l) London Dispersion Dipole-Dipole Hydrogen Bonding NaI(s) → NaI(l) Ionic bonds C16H32(s) → C16H32(l) London Dispersion Forces There was no conductivity observed for ionic compounds in the solid state but there was a high conductivity observed for ionic compounds as an aqueous solution. I would expect molten sodium chloride to conduct
…show more content…
The reason for this was because if the solid conducted, it could automatically be determined that the solid was a metal and had metallic bonds. Of the unknowns that were tested, unknown 10 and unknown 11 were the only two that were able to be identified as having metallic bonds right away. The remaining ten unknowns were then put in a test tube and held over boiling water to see whether or not they would melt at or below 100C. The only solid that ended up melting was unknown 12. This then led to the conclusion that unknown 12 had the bond nonpolar covalent. As a way to reconfirm this conclusion, unknown 12 was mixed with hexane, another nonpolar substance, to see if it would dissolve. Unknown 12 ended up dissolving which proved once again it had nonpolar covalent bonds. This then left 9 unknown solids still to be determined. The next test that was completed in order to determine the solids bond type, was heating the solids over the Bunsen Burner. This allowed to see whether the solids would melt around 100 to 500C. Out of the solids tested, unknown 2, 5, 7, and 9 melted over the Bunsen Burner. While unknown 1,3,4,6, and 8 did not. The solids that melted over the Bunsen Burner were more likely to be determined to have polar covalent bonds while the solids that didn’t were more likely to be determined to have ionic bonds. As a way to confirm this, the remaining nine solids were mixed with water and …show more content…
First off the water was meant to see if the melting point was equal or below 100℃. This is not accurate because water will never really ever get to 100C because it will turn to vapor. Also by holding the solid over the water not all of the solid is being exposed to the heat evenly. Uneven heating would result in the solid not heating up high enough and making it seem like its melting point is higher than 100℃. If this happened then the solid would never be tested in hexane and would be tested in water instead. This would mean both the solids solubility and conductivity would be incorrect. Secondly, the Bunsen burners does not have a reliable temperature range. This is because a change in oxygen being given to the flame changes how hot the flame is. As a result if the flame was higher or lower than 500℃ the wrong temperature range would be recorded. If the temperature range was recorded as over 500℃ when in reality it was below 500℃ than this would have made the solid seem like it had ionic bonds when it had covalent bonds and vice
The reason for this was because if the solid conducted, it could automatically be determined that the solid was a metal and had metallic bonds. Of the unknowns that were tested, unknown 10 and unknown 11 were the only two that were able to be identified as having metallic bonds right away. The remaining ten unknowns were then put in a test tube and held over boiling water to see whether or not they would melt at or below 100C. The only solid that ended up melting was unknown 12. This then led to the conclusion that unknown 12 had the bond nonpolar covalent. As a way to reconfirm this conclusion, unknown 12 was mixed with hexane, another nonpolar substance, to see if it would dissolve. Unknown 12 ended up dissolving which proved once again it had nonpolar covalent bonds. This then left 9 unknown solids still to be determined. The next test that was completed in order to determine the solids bond type, was heating the solids over the Bunsen Burner. This allowed to see whether the solids would melt around 100 to 500C. Out of the solids tested, unknown 2, 5, 7, and 9 melted over the Bunsen Burner. While unknown 1,3,4,6, and 8 did not. The solids that melted over the Bunsen Burner were more likely to be determined to have polar covalent bonds while the solids that didn’t were more likely to be determined to have ionic bonds. As a way to confirm this, the remaining nine solids were mixed with water and …show more content…
First off the water was meant to see if the melting point was equal or below 100℃. This is not accurate because water will never really ever get to 100C because it will turn to vapor. Also by holding the solid over the water not all of the solid is being exposed to the heat evenly. Uneven heating would result in the solid not heating up high enough and making it seem like its melting point is higher than 100℃. If this happened then the solid would never be tested in hexane and would be tested in water instead. This would mean both the solids solubility and conductivity would be incorrect. Secondly, the Bunsen burners does not have a reliable temperature range. This is because a change in oxygen being given to the flame changes how hot the flame is. As a result if the flame was higher or lower than 500℃ the wrong temperature range would be recorded. If the temperature range was recorded as over 500℃ when in reality it was below 500℃ than this would have made the solid seem like it had ionic bonds when it had covalent bonds and vice