What Is the Bonding Explanation for Fe2S3?

  • Thread starter Thread starter transgalactic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bond
AI Thread Summary
Fe2S3 consists of iron (Fe) and sulfur (S) atoms, where iron has an electron configuration of [Ar]3p^6 4s^2 and requires the loss of 7 electrons to achieve neutrality, while sulfur has an electron configuration of [Ne]3S^2 3p^4 and needs to gain 2 electrons. The bonding in Fe2S3 can be explained through ionic bonding, where iron donates electrons to sulfur. The discussion emphasizes the need for clarity in presenting solutions, highlighting that simply stating answers without showing the work is insufficient. Participants are encouraged to provide detailed explanations and relevant equations to support their conclusions. Clear communication of the bonding process is essential for understanding the compound's formation.
transgalactic
Messages
1,386
Reaction score
0
Fe=[Ar]3p^6 4s^2 it needs to give 7 electrons to become neutral.
S=[Ne]3S^2 3p^4 it needs to take 2 electrons to become neutral.how to describe Fe_2 S_3 ??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Please be more specific. Use the template.

What is the actual question?

What are the relevant equations?

What have you done so far?
 
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5596/75669110kx5.th.gif

this is the solution
how they got it from this data:
Fe=[Ar]3p^6 4s^2 it needs to give 7 electrons to become neutral.
S=[Ne]3S^2 3p^4 it needs to take 2 electrons to become neutral.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
transgalactic said:
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5596/75669110kx5.th.gif

this is the solution
how they got it from this data:
Fe=[Ar]3p^6 4s^2 it needs to give 7 electrons to become neutral.
S=[Ne]3S^2 3p^4 it needs to take 2 electrons to become neutral.

Your solution is unreadable. You also need to show some work, not just list the question and the answer and expect us to work it out for you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top