%D, %d %M %y
Time: %h~:~%m

Home  / Main / Review by Doctor V.I. Kuznetzov

Review by Doctor V.I. Kuznetzov

This booklet about the new general theory of chemical bonding and chemical kinetics is an unusual one. In the new theory, the strength of the covalent bond is explained by the fact that the main portion of heat energy, passed to the covalent molecules, which are subject to thermal breaking, there is a sort of unproductive expenditure of this energy, i.e., it is spent not on the increase of the nuclei's vibrational energy, but spent on increasing the energy and the entropy of the bonding electrons. It has been proven in the theory of chemical reactions that reaction A + BC →AB + C proceeds not via the transition state A...B...C that is located on the maximum of the potential energy curve, but via the intermediate compound A · B : C, which is situated on the minimum. 
The comparatively small values of activation energy (about 40 kJ/mol) as compared with bonding energy (about 400 kJ/mol) during radical interaction with saturated molecules is explained in the new theory by the rapid electronic isomerization of compound of A · B  : C into A : B · C. The offered theories do not contain any suppositions that contradict modern science; all the common and individual precepts were confirmed experimentally. This new theory is based on fundamental experiments, on differentiation between atomic and molecular spectra, and that between hydrogen molecules and covalent molecules.
In the basis of the theory of chemical reactions lay the experimental data relative to the stability of molecular complexes, electron isomerization speed, the kinetics of chemically activated reactions, and the data received when studying the reactions in molecular in bunches.
Among the drawbacks in our work was the brevity of the authors in sections relative to the criticism of both quantum chemistry (including the Heitler-London model) and the transitions state theory. Here, most likely, we should have not only mentioned the works of some authors like Rutherford, Pollak, but should have included other works as well.
To conclude, I call upon the readers to discuss the theories offered in this booklet; for indeed, when introducing new conceptions, it is just as harmful to stay mum, as it is to negate them without reasoning. Examples that confirm this thesis about the harmful prejudices and inertia in science are well known. Silence and bias once impeded the introduction of the van't Hoff, Arrhenius, and Butlerov theories. 
Indeed, ungrammatical were regarded the ideas about the influence of the magnetic pole on chemical reactions, which were recently awarded the Lenin Premium. Studies about   vibrational and rolling waves in chemical processes were ousted from science for many years! Recall the fate of the Belousov reaction!                                                               



Doctor of Chemical Sciences,
Academic at the International Academy of Natural Sciences,
Honored Scientist of the RSFSR.