At 12:04 AM 6/21/02, Sean Kane wrote: >At 01:17 AM 6/20/02 -0500, Ronn wrote: >(And please don't anyone tell me that the "planetary electron" description >is pass�. In cases like this, it helps the visualization better than the >"more correct" electron-cloud model. I don't plan to discuss bonding >versus antibonding orbitals or sigma and pi bonds either, at least not in >this post.) > >Wouldn't think to question it... often (carefully) did the same while >teaching general chemistry myself.
Some (not all) recent books I've seen seem to go to great pains to never show the beginning student anything that looks like a "miniature solar system" diagram, but from the beginning show "fuzzy electron clouds" because "that's how it really is" even when the idea of electrons in discrete orbits makes the concept being discussed easier to grasp. So far, I haven't found that switching back and forth loses the students, particularly if one is careful to point out from the beginning that no model can possibly show what the interior of an atom "really looks like." After all, we have to switch back and forth all the time between the wave nature of light (most optics) and its particle nature (spectral line production and the photoelectric effect) . . . ><snip> > >>A chemist, however, might wonder about my reference to negatively charged >>hydrogen ions, i.e., a hydrogen atom with two electrons, as such things >>do not normally appear under conditions found in the chem lab.) > >Of course a physical chemist wouldn't even finch... ;-) Most students, however, seem to see P-chem as something that must be endured and gotten over with as soon as possible, sort of like a root canal . . . ;-) -- Ronn! :) Ronn Blankenship Instructor of Astronomy/Planetary Science University of Montevallo Montevallo, AL Disclaimer: Unless specifically stated otherwise, any opinions contained herein are the personal opinions of the author and do not represent the official position of the University of Montevallo.
