MO model

The three highest occupied orbitals of sulfoxides are the lone pairs ns and n0, as well as the 7iso bond210. The 1,3-dithietane 1-oxide adds a lone-pair ionization and destabilizes the n0 and nso radical-cation states compared with thietane oxide. According to a hyperconjugative MO model, the ns+ combination in 1,3-dithietane is destabilized by about leV relative to the basis orbital energy a(ns) due to the combination with the... 

The foregoing discussion indicates that while there are difficulties in the way of a bonding role for 3d orbitals, for certain situations at least it is possible to conceive of ways in which these difficulties may be overcome. However, it is necessary to say that even for hypervalent molecules such as SF6 which seem to require the use of d orbitals, there are molecular orbital treatments not involving the use of d orbitals. In fact, as shown by Bent in an elegant exposition12, the MO model of SF6 involving the use of d orbitals is only one of several possibilities. The octahedral stereochemistry of SF6, traditionally explained in... 

Figure 11. Turn over frequency for CO oxidation over Au/ Ti02/Mo model catalysts [42].

In calculations and interaction diagrams, only the most simplistic MO models will be chosen to represent ground and excited states of reactants. An olefin then has a bond framework largely neglected in discussing the reactivity of the molecule. The bonding level will be characterized by a jr-electron wave function with no nodes between the two basis fi orbitals of the ir-bond. The first jr-antibonding level has one node in the wave function, and a first excited state has electron-occupancy of unity in each level. 

Pimentel presented a particularly simple and lucid MO model of hypervalency (building on physical concepts that were also recognized by Rundle)137 that is applicable to atoms of similar or dissimilar electronegativity. The Pimentel-Rundle model is based on a general triatomic A—B—C species in which each atom contributes only a single basis AO (/a, xb, xc) that interacts strongly with the AO on... 

Pimentel employed this three-center, four-electron (3c/4e) MO model to discuss the bonding in triiodide (I3-), bifluoride (FHF-), and other prototypical hypervalent species. In triiodide and other trihalides, for example, the relevant AOs are the (pa, Pb, Pc) orbitals along the bonding axis,... 

The Pimentel-Rundle 3c/4e MO model can readily be generalized to hybrid orbitals (rather than pure AOs) and more general LCAO-MO mixing coefficients... 

Figure 3.84 An illustration of the Pimentel-Rundle three-center MO model of hypervalency, showing equilibrium valence AO (xa-/b-Xc) overlap patterns for (a) 2pF—2pF—2pF NAOs of the trifluoride ion, F3 and (b) 2pF—lsp—2pF NAOs of the bifluoride ion, FHF-.

Consistently with the Pimentel-Rundle 3c/4e MO model, the central atom is expected to use a single p orbital to form each cu-bonded pair (i.e., px for the cu bonds in the x direction and py for the cu bonds in the y direction), which leaves only s and pz orbitals for forming the two bonds along the z direction. As a result of the inherent symmetry of the three spatial directions and equivalence of the available orbitals for bonding in each... 

The minimal basis calculation on the hydrogen molecule is a well-worn but eminently suitable example for our purposes. It has a convenient symmetry element and orbital basis calculations can be carried through which are quantitatively acceptable and yet not prohibitively unwiedly to report. We give below variational calculations on the H2 molecule using the familiar simplest AO basis in the one-electron-group (MO) model and the electron-pair (VB) model. These calculations have been performed explicitly to investigate the effect of symmetry constraints . 

The second of these four consequences has proved to be the most unfortunate. Even when a set of parameters has been consciously optimised within the MO model (and there can be no objection of principle to the conscious use of the MO framework as a numerical interpolation device), the temptation to improve on the MO results has proved irresistable. We can therefore And Cl and VB calculations using molecular integrals which have been constrained by the invariance requirement to be meaningful only in the MO framework. 

In this section we examine this orthogonality constraint in order to evaluate its consequences for a theory of valence. Is it a substantive formal constraint on the type of model we may use does it restrict the type of physical phenomenon we can describe or is it simply a technical constraint on the method of calculation or what In fact we shall find that the strong orthogonality constraint is central to any orbital basis theory of molecular electronic structure. It has a bearing on the applicability of the model approximations we use, on the validity of most numerical approximations used within these models and (apart from the simplest MO model) has a dominant effect on the technical feasibility of the methods of solution of the equations generated by our models. Thus, it is of some importance to try to separate these various effects and attempt to evaluate them individually. 

The most widely used qualitative model for the explanation of the shapes of molecules is the Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion (VSEPR) model of Gillespie and Nyholm (25). The orbital correlation diagrams of Walsh (26) are also used for simple systems for which the qualitative form of the MOs may be deduced from symmetry considerations. Attempts have been made to prove that these two approaches are equivalent (27). But this is impossible since Walsh s Rules refer explicitly to (and only have meaning within) the MO model while the VSEPR method does not refer to (is not confined by) any explicitly-stated model of molecular electronic structure. Thus, any proof that the two approaches are equivalent can only prove, at best, that the two are equivalent at the MO level i.e. that Walsh s Rules are contained in the VSEPR model. Of course, the transformation to localised orbitals of an MO determinant provides a convenient picture of VSEPR rules but the VSEPR method itself depends not on the independent-particle model but on the possibility of separating the total electronic structure of a molecule into more or less autonomous electron pairs which interact as separate entities (28). The localised MO description is merely the simplest such separation the general case is our Eq. (6)... 

These latter considerations clarify our position on the use of particular models of molecular electronic structure. The electron-pair model is not absolutely preferable to the MO model in all respects, that is the electron-pair model is not to be recommended per se, but is to be preferred in most systems consisting of ground states of saturated bonds. 

Infrared intensities of a variety of derivatives of ns-C5HgMn(CO)3 correlated with a simple MO model. Also 5SMn Mossbauer data... 

---