Talk:Bond-dissociation energy

message: I pulled a copy of the paper in reference two and found that it does not include homonuclear diatomics, so cannot be the source for the first table. Would anyone care to post a better reference? 173.17.185.1 (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bond dissociation energies not found in source

message: Science world says this and bond energy are the same. We say different. Which is correct? - Taxman Talk 17:37, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
* in many case the values will be similar but in other there are differences, see the water example , to state that they are the same would be an oversimplification  V8rik 15:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article currently states that bond energy is the sum of all the bond dissociation energies in a molecule, but the Bond energy article does not seem to go with this definition. How can this be clarified?--GregRM 13:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand it somewhat now...the bond energy is not the sum itself, but is calculated from the sum.--GregRM 14:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with the OP - Wikipedia articles must come from prior published material, and every mention I can find of bond dissociation energy says it is equal to the bond energy. My main source is the Silberberg Chemistry 4th edition, but the OP mentions a Science World article as well. --169.233.62.35 19:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bond dissociation energy vs. bond energy

message: The sentence mentioning that the bond energy is calculated from the sum seems potentially misleading...it says that the bond energy is calculated based on the sum of the bond dissociation energies of all bonds within the molecule. However, one might say for water, for example, that since the two OH bonds in the water molecule are equivalent, the average based on the sum of the two is the same as the first OH dissociation. Perhaps it could be worded more precisely to emphasize the distinction illustrated in the example; perhaps something along the lines of: "...bond energy, which is calculated based on the average of the bond dissociation energies associated with sequentially breaking all X-Y bonds in a molecule (where X-Y is the bond of interest)."; or perhaps "...bond energy, which is calculated based on the sum of the bond dissociation energies associated with sequentially breaking up a molecule into its constituent atoms." Note that I'm not sure which (if any) of these statements is correct and still holds for more complicated molecules...I would have to look into this some more. Does either of these agree with the general method discussed by the textbook reference?--GregRM 00:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification of bond energy method

message: The units listed in the article are kcal/mol, should the units be SI (J/mol) as that is the proper scientific convention?
later units in the article are also in J/mol
: The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) suggests using SI for all articles, where there are not compelling reasons to do otherwise. Based on this argument, I would use kJ/mol.  However, the scientific literature (J. of Chemical Physics, J. of Physical Chemistry) are rife with both units.  Therefore, I suggest sticking to the units of the source, with converted units in parenthesis, as suggested in the style manual, under the units of measurement heading. Az7997 18:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: In the introduction, BDE is defined as abstandard enthalpy change. However, in the section Homolytic vs heterolytic dissociation, the following appears:
H2 → 2 H· ΔG = 102 kcal/mol (see table below)
H2 → H+ + H- ΔG = 66 kcal/mol (in water)
Should not the symbols be ΔH instead of ΔG? --BingoChem (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Symbols

message: Is this comment in the table really accurate? In the catalytic process, the bond length and energy is altered when a molecule bounds to the surface of catalyst. So this seems to be the case of considerably lower energies. Maybe it would be more correct to mention "broken during industrially used thermal cracking processes" ? --Esmu Igors (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alkane bonds ".. readily broken by catalytic cracking" 

message: I think that this article is missing this section, and I'm not educated enough to add it.  I actually came to wikipedia looking for the QM subject on dissociation.  I hope that someone will work on this. Elleacampbell (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The simplest possible case is two protons linked by one electron, otherwise known as the dihydrogen cation, q.v. for the relevant Schroedinger equation which was first applied to this cation within a year of Schroedinger's 1926 paper. Diatomic molecules are relatively tractable, triatomic and up are much hairier.  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantum Mechanical treatment of Bond dissociation energies

message: In the article there are the editing marks "<  !- -" and "- ->" respectively before and after the statement below:
::: Following dissociation, if new bonds of greater bond-dissociation energy are formed, these products are at lower enthalpy, there is a net loss of energy, and thus the process overall is exothermic. In particular, the conversion of the weak double bonds in O2 to the stronger bonds in CO2 and H2O makes combustion exothermicwell that depends on the C and H sources!
Because of the editing mark the Ref.#6, "Schmidt-Rohr, K. (2015). "Why Combustions Are Always Exothermic, Yielding About 418 kJ per Mole of O2". J. Chem. Educ. 92: 2094–2099. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00333." appears as an orphan in the article.
Could anything be done about this please? The author and the editor may like to look into this!
Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visually Orphaned Ref. #6 

message: The color of the halogens, as far as I recall, is due to pi* to sigma* excitation.  Is that directly correlated with the BDE?  If so, could someone provide a reference? In fact, the BDE of I2 and F2 are quite similar (both around 35 kcal/mol), but their colors are not.  Alsosaid1987 (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Those comments were probably mine.  I removed them today. --Smokefoot (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Think we've all made edits that seem less apt on second consideration.  Thanks for the changes! Alsosaid1987 (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color of the halogens and BDE 

message: The first table of bond energies says carbon monoxide has the "strongest bond in neutral molecule," then just leaves the obvious question hanging. The page on Chemical bond has a narrower table that also mentions the energy of the CO bond (with a slightly different value) and shows nothing stronger. So what is the actual strongest bond between atoms? 192.91.171.36 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strongest bond in non-neutral molecule?