> 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) . . . > > -- Ronn! :)
This is entirely weird. When I had Cemistry in HS I didn't get most of the science, especially about electron orbits (still got A's of course). When I had to take it for College, the teacher used the cloud model and everything went SNAP in my head, it seemed so obvious. Must be me. Kevin T. Summer lovin'
