Students helping students, join us in improving Bored of Studies by donating and supporting future students!
Ahh fair enough.This is not a professional answer, but I'm guessing the Arrhenius theory could possibly be better than the Bronsted-Lowry theory in terms of how it tells us bases usually have OH- whereas the Bronsted-Lowry theory says bases are proton acceptors, not specifying they have OH- (All bases don't have OH- but it's still a god guide)
No, Antoine Lavoisier stated that acids contained oxygen which was very wrong (could not explain why hydrogen halide compounds acted as acids even thought they did not contain an oxygen atom in its structure, could not eplain why metallic oxides when dissolved in water formed base instead of acid)Ahh fair enough.
How about any of the earlier ones, could any better B-L's theory?
Let me clarify - the others are not more useful but rather, still useful - particularly the Arrhenius model.So even though for the HSC syllabus, the Bronsted-Lowry is the most accepted, why are others still considered "more useful" in explaining acids and bases
I recall a question along the lines of that, please help : )