Re: Question about shells.
From: Bob (bbruner_at_uclink4.berkeley.edu)
Date: 11/25/04
- Next message: James: "Re: Activists, Not Global Warming, a Third-World Threat"
- Previous message: Dirk Bruere at Neopax: "Re: How is heroin made?"
- In reply to: The Silver Jar...: "Question about shells."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:51:53 -0800
On 23 Nov 2004 13:09:15 -0800, aristocracism@hotmail.com (The Silver
Jar...) wrote:
...
>
>Anyhow; Now thinking of shell structure if i take Mercury as the
>example here;
>
>Electronic shell configuration of 2:8:18:32:18:2
>
>Now looking at say Cinnabar (HgS), it appears Hg just has to loose the
>two electrons from it's outer shell to become stable, 'happy' or
>whatever.
>
>
>Now at school we were always taught that an atom was to have 8
>electrons in its outer shell to feel complacent.
Let's stop there for now. The "rule" (more of a guideline) you quote
is quite incorrect, or at least incomplete. It holds for elements near
the edges of the periodic table (broadly but only approximately, for
the main group elements). It does not hold for the transition metals
(or for the heavy metals just to the right of transition metals).
Think of the common example iron, whose common ions are +2 and +3
(which I bet you learned about). The point is that the octet rule
describes one way to reach a point of some stability, but there are
other ways. As the atoms get larger and more complex (and that
includes having electrons), the rules for stable points become more
complex, and not easily predicted or summarized. Among other things,
the differences between the energy levels are getting smaller, which
makes any effects less clear.
bob
>But Hg would have 18
>in its outer shell not 8 if it lost those two on the outer shell.
>
>Now this leads me to conclude (although i'm expecting to be wrong),
>that because the d subshell of the 5th shell is full that the atom is
>happy.
>
>But the confusion comes in it for me when we say take one of the group
>2 metals that have 2 in the outer shell. Now they want to lose these
>two. But yet the s subshell of that outer shell is full.
>
>So if an s subshell being full has not convinced the atom that it is
>stable why should a full p, d or f subshell?
>
>
>Or have i interpreted it totally wrong?
>
>
>Sylvester.
- Next message: James: "Re: Activists, Not Global Warming, a Third-World Threat"
- Previous message: Dirk Bruere at Neopax: "Re: How is heroin made?"
- In reply to: The Silver Jar...: "Question about shells."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
