At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
Well I would look at scientific papers done by linus pauling (amazing scientist) on the subject as he is the one who first proposed electronegativity. I wish I could be of more help I hope someone comes along and explains it as it is an interesting question
I'm going to download the journals right now actually would you like me to post them?
Sure. I would definitely appreciate that. Thank you!
Electronegativity is just a number for each element. You can find it on a Periodic Table that includes electronegativity.
This question is more in relation to how one would measure it in a laboratory I would assume. Which is an interesting question.
At least that is what I interpreted the question as
The question was directed to both how it is measured in a laboratory as well as how to figure out the electronegativity difference. So both answers are correct.
I have yet to read this article so I do not know if it contains your answer I will search a little more and I plan on reading them later
yes i would also just use a periodic table of elements. general rules are the more top and to the left, the more electronegetive. there are exceptions but its a good rule.
to the right*
Thanks much to all of you. I appreciate it.
Wait I have one more journal that is probably what you are looking for
Another scientist updated the pauling scale, I will update his publication give me a minute to find it
I think the last journal I posted goes over everything though
Electronegativity doesn't have an umabiguous and natural definition, like ionization potential or electron affinity. It's a made-up quantity, like "percent ionic character" or "percent metallic character" or "how poisonous" that is meant to convey an overall impression of a whole basket of underlying well-defined physical and chemical properties. What happens is that various people have devised various definitions of electronegativity, which they hope result in a scale that best captures the bonding behaviour of atoms (which is the point of the EN scale). You then follow those defintions to calculate the EN. For example, the earliest proposal for electronegativity was that by Linus Pauling, and he gave a definition that involved comparing the first ionization energies of the elements. That would only give you a relative number, so you still had to define at least one electronegativity arbitrarily, and then measure every other number relative to that. Pauling chose to define the EN of fluorine as 4.0, and then measure everything from that, and that gives you the Pauling EN scale. There have been a number of other scales proposed, but unless this stuff fascinates you I think most people just stick with Pauling, since the precise numbers don't matter a whole lot -- you're just interested in the broad trends.