sci.physics.electromag

In previous posts I quoted what four textbooks of chemistry define as
the Chemical Bond. I believe I have the
very best definition. It follows from the concept of Electronegativity
in chemistry as a numerical energy value.

What I propose is that we set up a scheme to give numerical data and
define Bond as to what numerical
data places that compound.

Give me a water molecule and I have to find out what amount of energy
it takes to remove the individual
atoms of that water molecule. Give me a ammonia molecule or alcohol
molecule or table salt molecule
and I have to give what amount of energy it takes to dissolve the
individual atoms of that molecule.

In this manner we forget about whether we have ionic, covalent,
metallic bond and we end up with
purely math numbers of energy of dissolution of molecules into
constituent atoms.

The same thing in physics of the currents. We are told a current has 1
amps and 10 volts. We thus
do not know if it is a DC current or a AC current or a Capacitor
Current. We simply know it is a current
and have those numbers for amperage and voltage. Likewise in
Chemistry, we really do not need to
know classifications of polar bond, ionic bond, covalent bond,
metallic bond. All we really need know
is how much energy it takes to dissolve a compound or molecule into
its constituent atoms.

So my opinion, which can easily change, is that we define Chemical
Bond as nothing more than
the energy needed to break apart a given molecule or compound into its
constituent atoms. Some
may argue of a distance of separation of constituent atoms. Here I
would say a comparative energy
analysis, just as electronegativity table is a comparative numeric.

So that if we can give a Electronegativity Table of all the Elements,
we can give a Dissolution Table
of all Molecules.

Thus, we simply define Molecule as a combination of atoms bonded
together. And we define Chemical
Bond as the positive amount of energy required to dissolve that
molecule into constituent atoms.

Science is not classification and where classification has interferred
with understanding science.
Classification is meant as a helper to science when we lack
understanding of the topic. Ionic, covalent
and metallic were helpers in chemistry but have now become
distractions and misleading of the
true knowledge of chemistry. This is what the attempt by Waser,
Trueblood, Knobler was in their
Chem One textbook as they define chemical bond as a Quantum Mechanical
definition based
on the Schrodinger Wave Equation.

To get at the true heart of a science, you have to be cognizant that
the classifications are not the science
but that the science goes beyond the classifications and at some point
you eject or reject the classification.

And if you do chemistry long enough, you realize there are molecules
that are a mix of bonds of ionic,
covalent and metallic. So when you have a mixture, means that the
classification scheme is a failure.

So I am going to offer as a definition of Chemical Bond, simply a pure
number that can be experimentally
determined as to a positive amount of energy to dissolve a molecule
into its component atoms. And
call the bond that amount of energy.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies