> It was all Sylvia Eliasoff's fault. This woman--my high school chem
In another thread I began an explanation about chelating heavy metals
about Pearson's hard and soft acids.
It ain't but "it's in the bonding" - I know.
But how one would approach such explanations *without* going into MO
calculations, defining HOMO, LUMO, &c then calculating polarisabilities
and orbital overlaps?
I still can't see Chemistry drifting away from medieval concepts of
They work (yes they *do* work *extremely well*) but the maths involved are
*so* complicated that it's not possible to blame one calling Occam's razor
(is that right?), kicking quantics away and sticking to affinity
(or "it's in the bonding"...)
You see, I am not advocating neither, just bringing up what I think is a
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([Only registered users see links. ]).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/8/2003
"Joćo Antonio" <[Only registered users see links. ].br> wrote in message
news:binqj5$ndn$[Only registered users see links. ].ntu.edu.tw...
That much detail isn't needed in every case, but you should have the tools
available, and know when to use them. A very good chemist I knew (he has
since passed away) said that rules of thumb are enough for a technician, but
a scientist needs to be able to go beyond them.