so the chemistry professor says "ic" acids come from "ate" ions and "ous" acids come from "ite" ions. This is true to a point, but right now I'm making myself a nice little cheat sheet for looking up information I come across alot in my homework. I have so much stuff to remember from this, that and the other already as it is! So, I'm using the system and the one snag I run into is the same reason that using roman numerals for elements that when combined with other elements from positive charges are used instead of this whole "ic" and "ous" thing. I've been looking for every acid within the first 6 periods and last 6 columns of the periodic table that contains nonmetals with at least one hydrogen atom and one oxygen atom.
So by the theory of "ic" from "ate" and "ous" from "ite" Carbonic acid is formed from joining a hydrogen with the carbonate ion or as you might recognize it, carbon trioxide. Well then by this principle, attaching a hydrogen to a carbon dioxide (carbonite) molecule should result in carbonous acid right? Wrong! Organic chemistry has demanded that this be named Formic acid! Likewise if I take carbon monoxide and add a hydrogen, I should arrive at Hypocarbonous acid right? Yeah, go try that on Google, because you definately won't get any straight answers. anyhoo, for whatever reason, this system does not work and can be misleading. Perhaps we should stop usage of this whole "ic" from "ate" and "ous" from "ate" rule and revise our acid nomenclature. Seriously! If an acid is what it is because of the Hydrogen part of it being so willing to seperate itself, then why not say Carbon monoxide acid, Carbon dioxide acid, Carbon trioxide acid and so forth? Anyone else thinks that makes better sense?
So by the theory of "ic" from "ate" and "ous" from "ite" Carbonic acid is formed from joining a hydrogen with the carbonate ion or as you might recognize it, carbon trioxide. Well then by this principle, attaching a hydrogen to a carbon dioxide (carbonite) molecule should result in carbonous acid right? Wrong! Organic chemistry has demanded that this be named Formic acid! Likewise if I take carbon monoxide and add a hydrogen, I should arrive at Hypocarbonous acid right? Yeah, go try that on Google, because you definately won't get any straight answers. anyhoo, for whatever reason, this system does not work and can be misleading. Perhaps we should stop usage of this whole "ic" from "ate" and "ous" from "ate" rule and revise our acid nomenclature. Seriously! If an acid is what it is because of the Hydrogen part of it being so willing to seperate itself, then why not say Carbon monoxide acid, Carbon dioxide acid, Carbon trioxide acid and so forth? Anyone else thinks that makes better sense?
