How Does Electron Configuration Change When Removing Electrons from Ca 2+?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the electron configuration of the calcium ion (Ca 2+) and the process of removing electrons. The full notation for Ca 2+ is incorrectly stated, as it should reflect the removal of electrons from the highest occupied orbital, specifically the 4s2 orbital. When removing two electrons from Ca 2+, the core notation simplifies to [Ar] without the 4s2. Clarification is provided that core notation represents the noble gas configuration, which simplifies the representation of electron arrangements. Understanding these concepts is essential for accurately determining electron configurations for ions.
Larrytsai
Messages
222
Reaction score
0
right in full notation, and core

Full
Ca 2+ =
1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p4

Core
Ca 2+ = [Ar] 4s2 - what happens when the 4s2 cancells out?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your full notation is wrong.

I'm not quite certain what your second question is in regards to.
 
Larrytsai said:
right in full notation, and core

Full
Ca 2+ =
1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p4

Core
Ca 2+ = [Ar] 4s2 - what happens when the 4s2 cancells out?

Ca = [Ar] 4s2

If you have the element S2- you're electron configuration will be [Ar], while the element S is just [Ne] 3s2 3p4.
 
GCT said:
Your full notation is wrong.

I'm not quite certain what your second question is in regards to.

hmm. that's the thing, the positive ion throws me off... I am supposed to remove 2 electrons in this order P -> S -> D so originally i would have 2+ more on the last shell

Second question I am supposed to write in Core Notation.
 
Your supposed to remove the electron from the highest occupied electron orbital which is the 4s2 orbital - what would you have as a result?

Core notation refers to the noble gas notation - it's nothing complicated once you figure out the first part the second should be made apparent.
 
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