Talk:Bond dipole moment
|WikiProject Chemistry||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
backwards crossed arrows do have a purpose
I was wondering if I could change the explanation for how (and why) many introductory chemistry texts draw dipole moments backwards (with a cross to denote the positive side of the dipole moment)? I realize that there is good reason to follow the conventions set by physicists, but I don't believe that the chemists' conventions should be ignored. Here are my reasons:
- This page is in the WikiProject Chemistry and even in the Chemical bond properties category. Thus, if the page is going to yield to the conventions of only one discipline (chemistry vs. physics), it would seem reasonable to choose the chemists' convention.
- Many introductory (and even medium level) chemistry textbooks use the "backwards crossed arrow" notation but do not imply that the direction is arbitrary. The symbol may not make sense to everyone, but it is used, and it does give very specific information. The direction 'is' defined in reference to the partial charges. I would like this page to at least mention the notation which nearly every new chemistry student is familiar with.
- From a personal standpoint, I still prefer using the "backwards crossed arrow" notation because then my dipole moments are not mistaken for electric fields in lecture notes.
I just don't want to delete the explanation and reference of Jsd without throwing my idea and reasons out there for a while... MRDubay 23:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRDubay (talk • contribs)
I am reading my Organic Chemistry textbook right now (Carey, Organic Chemistry, 8th edition). It says bond dipoles are drawn from plus to minus. The cross on the positive end of the dipole indicates a positive charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Poor last paragraph
I suggest removing or revising the last paragraph as it appears to be a summary (although not labelled as such) but is poorly written and somewhat misleading. Jim23mac (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you. This just repeats the introduction where it is better written. So I have deleted it. Dirac66 (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)