The offered material was reported at more than a dozen conferences including the First Conference of the WATOC (World Association of Theoretical Organic Chemistry); at the ACS Conference in San Diago; on seminars at Clark University and Brandeis University. The book How Chemical Bonds Form and Chemical Reactions Proceed was sent to 40 foremost US scientists and specialists in chemistry, including 5 Nobel Prize winners. It was sent to practically all the magazines that publish reviews of books on chemistry and physics. Ads were sent to Chemistry Departments of numerous universities abroad.

This report had previously been published in 30 various sources during 1982-1999 in the Russian Chemical Synopses Magazine in the USSR – Russia.

Two monographs have been published on the work: ‘New Theory of Chemical Bonding’ (1^st edition) ‘How Chemical Bonds Form and Chemical Reactions Proceed’ (2^nd edition):

"…The authors offer a new explanation about the nature of covalent chemical bonding… Based upon this approach, their Theory of Elementary Interactions (TEI) is a unified theory of kinetics and catalysis and an alternative to the Transition State Theory (TST). Various Types of chemical reactions are analyzed. The authors deal with the deficiencies in the existing conceptions of chemical bonding and kinetics, and offer new interpretations for the basic catalytic regularities."

Journal of Chemical Education,

August 1992, page A227

Here is another monograph from the magazine CHOICE (Current Reviews for Academic Libraries) February 1999, vol. 36 #6, Dept. of SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, Chemistry:

HOW CHEMICAL BONDS FORM AND CHEMICAL REACTIONS PROCEED by Victor Y. Gankin & Yuriy V. Gankin; [Ed. by Joseph R. Votano; tr. by Alexander P. Rogach]. Institute of Theoretical Chemistry (ITC), 8 Shrewsbury Green Gr. #J, Shrewsbury, MA, 01545, 1998. 451p ISBN 0-9554143-0-6, $49.90

This is a puzzling book. ... The first edition was A New Theory of Chemical Bonding and Chemical Kinetics, Leningrad (1991). ... In this rather polemical book, they state their disappointment with quantum chemistry, particularly with molecular orbital theory. ... The authors offer a distinctive perspective on the topics of the title; perhaps the book will stimulate productive discussion. Researchers; faculty; professionals. – A. Viste, Augustana College (SD)

The Tentative Compendium of Proposals for change in the Introductory Chemistry Curriculum compiled by Stephen J. Hawkes of the Chemistry Department of the Oregon State University included:

98. The Gankin calculations on chemical bonding, which do not involve quantum mechanics, should be taught in introductory chemistry. See: "How Chemical Bonds Form and Chemical Reactions Proceed", Gankin, V.Y., Gankin, Y.V. pub. Institute of Theoretical Chemisty, Shrewsbury, MA, 1998.

The question regarding the testing of this material, as a rule, never occurs on the part of the readers because all the experiments on which the theories of chemical bonding and chemical reactions are based, are described in most monographs and textbooks on chemistry.

All the calculations have been made without any additional chemical, physical, or mathematical suppositions, which, indeed, might have caused discussions. Our calculations can be checked on the basis of high school mathematics.

I would like to mention here that the editing of the book was kindly done by J.R.Votano, Ph.D. President of SciVision. And one of the reviews of the first issue of the book (1991) was written by a foremost chemist and historian V.I. Kuznetsov:

This book is undoubtedly of great importance since it offers a new theory of chemical bonding and kinetics which explains the high stability of covalent bonding by the fact that the main part of the thermal energy, given to the covalent molecules, subjected to thermal breaking, is spent unproductively. That is, this energy is spent not on the increase of the nuclei vibrational energy, but on the increase of the energy and entropy of the bonding electrons.

The theory of chemical bonding proves that reaction A+BC ® AB+C does not proceed via the transition state A.....B.....C which is located on the maximum of the potential energy curve, but proceeds via the intermediate compound AB:C located on the minimum. The comparatively low values of activating energy (» 40 kJ/mol) as compared to the bonding energy (» 400 kJ/mol) during the interaction of the radicals with saturated molecules, is explained in the new theory by the rapid electronic isomerization of compound A^.B:C in A:B^.C.

This new theory does not contradict modern science. All the theses are based on experimental evidence. The principal data on the comparison of atomic and molecular spectra, hydrogen molecule spectra, and those of other covalent molecules, have formed the basis of the theory of chemical bonding. The theory of chemical reactions is based on the stability of molecular complexes, on electronic isomerization rates, on the kinetics of chemically activated reactions, and on the studies of reactions in molecular beams.

Among the shortcomings of the book, it might be said, there is some brevity used by the authors in the chapter criticizing quantum chemistry, including the Heitler-London model and the transition state theory. The authors should have dwelled in greater detail on the works of Rutherford and Pollak, and should have made better use of other works.

In conclusion, I would like to appeal to the readers and ask them to discuss this new theory constructively, because simple negation and ignoring of novelties is harmful when dealing with new conceptions. History knows many such cases of ignorance in science.

Indeed, the hushing up and lack of attention to Vant-Goff's theory had caused a delay in its recognition; the same is true of the theories of Arrhenius and Butlerov. For some time the influence of the magnetic field on the chemical reaction was regarded as nonsense, but just recently this theory was honored a Lenin prize in Russia. For many years the studies of vibrations and rolling waves in chemical processes have been tabooed in the scientific world - recall the works of Belousov in this respect.

V.I. Kuznetsov
Doctor of Chemistry,
Academician of the International Academy,
History of Natural Sciences,
Honored Scientist of the RSFSR (Russian Federation)

No. We fully agree with the recommendations of the Task Force. [See New Directions for General Chemistry by Baird W. Lloyd & James N. Spencer]

Our recommendations touch upon points (a) to (g) from Alter the Process Goals of the Course and also the materials of the Task Force given in section New Directions in Curricular that Follow the Recommendations: 2. Retain certain elements of the current curriculum, but organize the course around a smaller number of topics; and approaches to curricular reform: (1) a core/modular approach and (2) a zero-base curriculum.

That is, our scheme for offering the material to the students is identical with the core/modular approach. "The zero-base approach," as indicated on page 6 of the New Directions, "assumes that the problem of identifying what should be taught in general chemistry is best answered by examining subjects of importance to non-chemists that require a substantial knowledge of chemistry. The next step involves an analysis of the theoretical principles necessary to achieve this understanding." Our book How Chemical Bonds Form and Chemical Reactions Proceed (p. 306-311) contains some material which we think should be included in the zero-base approach.

We think that the zero-base approach should answer the following questions:

I) Why should we study chemistry – the science about the structure and transformation of substances?

II) What is substance composed of? 1) What particle is indivisible in the process of chemical transformation? 2) How is the atom constructed?

III) How do atoms bond into molecules? 1) What is the physical nature of chemical bonding? 2) What kinds of chemical bonds are there? 3) What are solid substances made of?

IV) What is a chemical transformation? 1) Why don't chemical reactions proceed if they are thermo-dynamically possible? 2) Why does the reaction speed increase along the exponent with the increase of temperature? 3) Why is it that in reactions proceeding with bond-breaking, the activation (additional) energy, as a rule, is much smaller than the energy necessary to break the bond thermally? Indeed, why is it that reactions proceed with the breaking of the chemical bond in normal conditions, while we need a temperature of more than 4,000° to break such bonds thermally? Examples of such reactions are interactions of radicals and ions with molecules, catalytic and photo-chemical reactions.

V) What are the cause-effect connections between the structure and properties of atoms and molecules and the physical and chemical properties of substances?

At present we are finishing the first version of our Zero-Base Course. We plan to have it published on the internet at the end of April 1999 in the file of www.itchem.com.

In the first version we offer the main chemical phenomena of chemical bonding, chemical reactions, the structure and properties of chemical substances, and the cause-effect connections between these phenomena on the basis of the well-known essences such as the electron-particle with a definite charge and mass which interacts via the known electrostatic and mechanical laws with a positively charged nucleus and other electrons.

I quite agree with you. We think that experimentally (phenomenologically) and via calculations which are given in our book How Chemical Bonds Form and How chemical reactions Proceed (see www.itchem.com.) one should first of all do away with quantum-chemical explanations of chemical phenomena (including the theory of molecular orbitals, valence bonds, the hybridization of orbitals, and the transition state theory) as being incorrect, not capable of explaining anything, and only mystifying chemistry.

At present, the need for excluding quantum-chemical explanations from the introductory level of general chemistry is supported by the majority of chemistry teachers for many reasons. For example, we, the authors of the book How Chemical Bonds Form and Chemical Reactions Proceed, have proven that quantum-chemical explanations of chemical phenomena actually resemble the ‘clothes of the naked king’ in which chemical phenomena are dressed. The most characteristic quantum-chemical explanations are given in our book. Besides, the book proves that the discovery of the wave properties of particles was simply the result of an experimental mistake, while the results of the Schroedinger equation, which fantastically coincided with the experiment, are explained by the unlimited number of adjustments. The proof can well be understood by high school students.

On the other hand, a large group of foremost scientists working in the sphere of teaching chemistry, first of all, R.I.Gillespi, J.N Spenser, R.S.Moog, think that it is necessary to demystify general chemistry, to take out of it all the quantum-chemical explanations.

We think that, at present, the main chemical phenomena, chemical bonding, qualitatively and semi-quantitatively can be correctly explained on the basis of our system which is detailed in our book. That is, we know what should be changed and how to change it!

As to your suggestion to change the whole of general chemistry, say, in favor of organic chemistry, we support you in this. However, we think that your examples speak to the effect that the basics of chemistry, i.e., chemical bonding and chemical reactions, are usually repeated in the first part of the organic chemistry course. We quite agree with your first remark, and we will consider it in our new version of General Chemistry. We will first of all attempt to clearly explain the regularities of only the main chemical phenomena, and there is no need to show our high educational status.

All questions that have specific meanings should be done away with. This is in reference to questions that the students do not understand, yet, they make attempts to solve them via calculations.

We agree with points 33 and 34 of the compendium.

In general chemistry (especially in the introductory level) it is best not to touch upon questions concerning nuclear reactions in spite of their political importance. From the viewpoint of general chemistry, if we consider politics, information about chemical and biological warfare would be more logic. However, we think that the course of general chemistry should contain chemistry as a science. Its contents, for better learning, should be limited to the minimum at the expense of excluding the material which is well described in physics textbooks, organic chemistry textbooks, biology textbooks, etc.

As far as mass-changes are concerned, we think this is a very important point. Please see our book entitled How Chemical Bonds Form and Chemical Reactions Proceed (pages 415-420). We are working at this problem.