Bumped by Community user occurred Apr 7 '17 at 11:45 Tweeted twitter.com/StackChemistry/status/839546858397700098 occurred Mar 8 '17 at 18:42 4 added 11 characters in body; edited tags edited Mar 8 '17 at 11:35 orthocresol♦ 43.7k77 gold badges138138 silver badges267267 bronze badges At my university, we had an organic chemistry exam question that stated,"The trend in the values of the ir absorbtions for the c-h bonds of methane ($$\ce{CH4}$$: $$2995\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$), (ethylene: $$3080\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$), and (acetylene: $$3305\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$) can be explained by... The answer was " by the increasing bond strength of the carbon-carbon single, double, and triple bonds. I thought the correct answer was "increasing Ss character of the carbon atoms". Could I get an explanation as to why the first response is valid? Thanks! At my university, we had an organic chemistry exam question that stated,"The trend in the values of the ir absorbtions for the c-h bonds of methane ($$\ce{CH4}$$: $$2995\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$), (ethylene: $$3080\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$), and (acetylene: $$3305\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$) can be explained by... The answer was " by the increasing bond strength of the carbon-carbon single, double, and triple bonds. I thought the correct answer was "increasing S character of the carbon atoms". Could I get an explanation as to why the first response is valid? At my university, we had an organic chemistry exam question that stated,"The trend in the values of the ir absorbtions for the c-h bonds of methane ($$\ce{CH4}$$: $$2995\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$), (ethylene: $$3080\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$), and (acetylene: $$3305\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$) can be explained by... The answer was " by the increasing bond strength of the carbon-carbon single, double, and triple bonds. I thought the correct answer was "increasing s character of the carbon atoms". Could I get an explanation as to why the first response is valid? Thanks! Bumped by Community user occurred Mar 8 '17 at 10:48 Bumped by Community user occurred Feb 6 '17 at 10:26 Bumped by Community user occurred Jan 7 '17 at 10:25 Bumped by Community user occurred Dec 8 '16 at 5:25 3 formatting, removed thanks edited Nov 7 '16 at 21:07 jerepierre 9,52333 gold badges2727 silver badges4747 bronze badges At my university, we had an organic chemistry exam question that stated,"The trend in the values of the ir absorbtions for the c-h bonds of methane ($$\ce{CH4}$$: $$2995\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$), (ethylene: $$3080\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$), and (acetylene: $$3305\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$) can be explained by... The answer was " by the increasing bond strength of the carbon-carbon single, double, and triple bonds. I thought the correct answer was "increasing S character of the carbon atoms". Could I get an explanation as to why the first response is valid? Thanks! At my university, we had an organic chemistry exam question that stated,"The trend in the values of the ir absorbtions for the c-h bonds of methane ($$\ce{CH4}$$: $$2995\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$), (ethylene: $$3080\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$), and (acetylene: $$3305\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$) can be explained by... The answer was " by the increasing bond strength of the carbon-carbon single, double, and triple bonds. I thought the correct answer was "increasing S character of the carbon atoms". Could I get an explanation as to why the first response is valid? Thanks! At my university, we had an organic chemistry exam question that stated,"The trend in the values of the ir absorbtions for the c-h bonds of methane ($$\ce{CH4}$$: $$2995\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$), (ethylene: $$3080\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$), and (acetylene: $$3305\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$) can be explained by... The answer was " by the increasing bond strength of the carbon-carbon single, double, and triple bonds. I thought the correct answer was "increasing S character of the carbon atoms". Could I get an explanation as to why the first response is valid? 2 formatting edit approved Nov 7 '16 at 21:07 Zhe 13.7k11 gold badge2828 silver badges5454 bronze badges At my university, we had an organic chemistry exam question that stated,"The trend in the values of the ir absorbtions for the c-h bonds of methane (CH4;2995 cm^-1$$\ce{CH4}$$: $$2995\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$), (ehylene; 3080 cm^-1ethylene: $$3080\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$), and (acetylene; 3305 cm^-1acetylene: $$3305\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$) can be explained by... The answer was ,"" by the increasing bond strength of the carbon- carboncarbon single, double, and triple bonds. I thought the correct answer was ,"increasing "increasing S character of the carbon atoms". Could I get an explanation as to why the first response is valid? Thanks! At my university, we had an organic chemistry exam question that stated,"The trend in the values of the ir absorbtions for the c-h bonds of methane (CH4;2995 cm^-1), (ehylene; 3080 cm^-1), and (acetylene; 3305 cm^-1) can be explained by... The answer was ," by the increasing bond strength of the carbon- carbon single, double, and triple bonds. I thought the correct answer was ,"increasing S character of the carbon atoms". Could I get an explanation as to why the first response is valid? Thanks! At my university, we had an organic chemistry exam question that stated,"The trend in the values of the ir absorbtions for the c-h bonds of methane ($$\ce{CH4}$$: $$2995\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$), (ethylene: $$3080\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$), and (acetylene: $$3305\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$$) can be explained by... The answer was " by the increasing bond strength of the carbon-carbon single, double, and triple bonds. I thought the correct answer was "increasing S character of the carbon atoms". Could I get an explanation as to why the first response is valid? Thanks! 1 asked Nov 7 '16 at 19:42 user34748 13166 bronze badges