[Alpha-Omega]

OK now you are rockin...SWEET

[Kryolith]

@TeF4pic2.GIF

<180° ok, <90° ok

<120° don't think this is correct, as there is a possibility to answer "<109.5°"

[Alpha-Omega]

In TeF4, only one of the hybrid dsp3 orbitals is occupied by a lone pair. This structure may be represented by TeF4E, where E represents a lone pair of electrons. This is identical to SF4.  This is a see-saw..

[Kryolith]

@Alpha-Omega

I know what you mean. We're talking about the same.  

It's like a TBP-system where one ligand is replaced with a lonepair, so the angle has to be <120°. In reality it is about 101°, so I am not sure about the correct answer.

[Alpha-Omega]

OK so here is another opinion:

In TeF4 one of the electron pairs is not involved in bonding (lone pair).

VSEPR theory predicts that a lone pair will repel bond pairs more than bond pairs repel bond pairs. 

So the bonds will be pushed slightly out of shape, changing the angles to 179 degrees and 103 degrees respectively.

It is difficult to predict these angles precisely but you can guess. 

So 3 sets of numbers all very close but the issue is <180 and <120  so regardless of the actual we are in the ballpark.

[Kryolith]

I agree

[enahs]

Cotton and Wilkinson:  Advanced Inorganic Chemistry

May I just say. I own this book. It was my first Inorganic Chemistry book. It is the worst Chemistry book I have ever seen. I only keep it to point out to people how horrible it is. It is technically correct. It is just one of the most painful science books I have ever read.


Carry on.

[Alpha-Omega]

Well, I am sorry you disliked it so much.  It is the academic/industry standard.  Cotton is "the God of Inorganic Chemistry."  I will never forget the day when my co-thesis advsor Dr Dhar received notification from Cotton that his work on LGOs had been accepted and approved...that made his life complete.

LOL when I went to TAMU for my weekend visit...(you go on those when you pick a grad school)...Dhar grilled me or an hour on my meeting with Cotton....he wanted to know every detail...Cotton was no longer taking grad students at the time...Personally, I ound him to be rather arrogant....BUT HE EARNED HIS ARROGANCE....

Perhaps you would find the Atkins text more understandable.  There is another text by Huey that is pretty decent.

Additionally, Cotton has a Introduction to Inorganic Chemistry text....

Books have different appeal to different people.  Most of the people I went to school with undergrad dreaded Inorganic Chemistry...they found Coottons book "difficult."

It is very common to use multiple texts when studing any subject in chemistry....go to the library and look at a few...there is bound to be one there that appeals to you.

[enahs]

Ohh, I have tons of Inorganic books. And it is perfectly understandable. It is just painful to read.

[Alpha-Omega]

LOL...yes it can be very painful...but it has its rewards...and I guarantee you if you stick with it YOU WILL BE A STAR in grad school....you will never have so many people ask you FOR HELP IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE....and ther is an old expressio:  "younever really know your subject matter until you can teach it."  So it has its rewards.

This is my favorite EXPRESSION/Joke:

This is organic chemistry:

C, H, O, sometimes a little N alkane, alkenes, alkynes, and aromatics:  visualize the bonds:  (single, double, triple, and a benzene ring)

As Dahr used to say:  "The rest of the Periodic Table belongs to us."