Timeline for how do electromeric / inductive effect theories compare with resonance
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 5, 2016 at 18:41 | vote | accept | nvja | ||
| Aug 3, 2016 at 19:03 | comment | added | SCH | Indeed. Very interesting! | |
| Aug 3, 2016 at 18:35 | comment | added | nvja | @S.Chevalier Chelintsev's model could not deny resonance per se, because its measurable effects were undeniable. But he was uncomfortable with the thought that electrons move from place to place without a pulling /pushing measurable force. The absence of a force jarred with materialism - the basis of "Marxist science". So he called the effects "mutual influences", to make them seem force-y. I think. In my understanding, re-wording is also the way to obsolescence for +E, -E. Chelintsev was at the forefront for <6 years and failed to muzzle critics. "Marxist chemistry" is stretching it. | |
| Aug 3, 2016 at 15:24 | comment | added | SCH | Maybe =]. Anyway thank you for your elucidations. | |
| Aug 3, 2016 at 15:17 | comment | added | SteffX | Sorry my comment was a bit misleading. I am not saying it was a convention but I have seen arrows from a proton to a double bond (and it actually makes sense in the context of electromeric effects). Maybe it was just a bad scheme. | |
| Aug 3, 2016 at 14:54 | comment | added | SCH | Are you sure @SteffX? This page shows curved arrows "symbolizing the displacement of electron pairs". I'm genuinely curious. | |
| Aug 3, 2016 at 14:11 | comment | added | SteffX | In the schemes describing electromeric effect, some arrows describe the movement of chemical species but standards now use arrows to describe the movement of a pair of electrons. The electromeric effect (on a scheme) is then implied. | |
| Aug 3, 2016 at 14:04 | history | answered | SCH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |