How should I imagine the difference between high-energy and low-energy bonds?
I imagine it like this:
Example using single bond and double bond:
Double bonds are stronger than single bonds.
Stronger and more stable means lower energy. Low energy means you have to put in a lot of energy to break the bond.
Do I have to imagine that in order to break bonds the sum of the energy INSIDE the bond before breaking and the energy supplied from outside to break it is ALWAYS THE SAME and that is why the energy supplied is always greater for more stable or lower energy bonds than for higher energy bonds because they require more energy from outside to reach the above-mentioned sum, which is always the same?
I bet my thought is wrong.
(1 votes)
Loading...
You like to say that with energy and low because you can imagine it well. There.ss in the bond itself is literally energy, but is not quite right. The problem is that you can’t really imagine what happens in subatomic space.
I’m trying to paint a picture. Imagine a ball lying on a level. This is an unbound atom. If there’s a bond now, the ball rolls into a valley. As a result, it obtains motion energy which is set free (this is the energy which is released during the binding operation) and remains below. If you want to break the binding, you have to roll up the ball again. Of course, it costs energy.
With a low-energy bond, this valley is now deeper than with an energy-rich one. Ergo can release more energy when a low-energy bond is coupled. But that is why there is no energy in the energy-rich bond.
Acid anhydrides which occur, for example, in ATP are such high-energy bonds which, so to speak, do not have a deep valley but a small valley?
Exactly
Yes in principle
Is the amount of energy released when a bond is set up exactly as large as the energy you have to apply to split it actually? Think
Oh, that’s probably just supposed to explain what bond is split. This has no particular chemical significance.
Only stands in my biochemistry book that one sometimes represents this bond in formulas. Found something. for example, there is acetyl-CoA and between the sulfur and the carbon is simply this sign ~
What do you mean with snake lines? Do you have a picture of it?
But I don’t understand what about acid anhydride bonds is so special that you can even make them extra lengthened in formulas. So if you have to apply only little energy to form this bond as well as little energy needs to split it (if I understand it correctly), what is so special to it?
Covalent bonds have a lot more binding energy, are more stable, low-energy. I understand that they are called stable because you need a lot of energy to split them.
In the case of acid anhydride bonds, therefore, little energy is needed to split them.
But I just don’t want to know why you’re actually making them extra in a special way with snake lines.
Is there a lot of other energy-rich bonds in biochemistry?