Part (c) indicates that any type of interaction is valid to enlist it as a chemical bond, as long as it creates an attraction force: from the Na + -Cl -ionic to the O2 dimer London interactions, everything goes. Wherever there is a force, no matter its nature or how weak it is, there is a bond. This is not only ambiguous, but also goes against our conventional understanding of the chemical bond. Do we have a chemical bond in every case of London forces? What about He2, a dimer 25,000 times weaker than the benzene dimer? What is the limit where we can safely say there is no bond anymore? The convenient energetic definition can represent and explain the bond, and it can predict where a bond should occur; but as seen above, its utility must be framed within limits. In this sense we can consider it not only as a definition, but also as a model of the chemical bond. This has the advantage that students are used to working with chemical models of all types (VSEPR, ideal gases, crystal field, etc.), and therefore it is a point worthy of teaching. Another characteristic of models is that they can accommodate other models that may explain the same phenomenon with completely different mathematical or heuristic tools, each one of them having explanation and prediction power, as well as their own limits (or as the ironic aphorism says, "all models are wrong, but some are useful" ). Still, there are many models of the bond that do not work as definitions of the chemical bond (for example