{"id":3548,"date":"2023-02-05T06:52:07","date_gmt":"2023-02-05T06:52:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/10thclass.deltapublications.in\/?page_id=3548"},"modified":"2024-12-02T09:03:55","modified_gmt":"2024-12-02T09:03:55","slug":"s-19-b-draw-backs-of-electronic-theory-of-valence","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/10thclass.deltapublications.in\/index.php\/s-19-b-draw-backs-of-electronic-theory-of-valence\/","title":{"rendered":"S-19.b Draw Backs Of Electronic Theory Of Valence"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Drawbacks of Electronic Theory Of Valence<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Key Notes:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Shapes of Molecules<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The theory does not explain the geometrical shapes of molecules. For instance, it cannot clarify why water (H\u2082O) has a bent shape or why methane (CH\u2084) forms a tetrahedral structure.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

2. Bond Strength<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It fails to explain differences in bond strength. For example, it cannot address why double bonds are stronger than single bonds but weaker than triple bonds<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

3. Transition Elements<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The theory is inadequate for transition elements, which involve d-orbitals. It does not explain variable valency or metallic bonding observed in these elements.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n

4. Octet Rule Exceptions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The theory overemphasizes the octet rule, ignoring molecules that violate it:<\/p>\n\n\n\n