Elements and similar type of reaction

AI Thread Summary
Potassium reacts with chlorine to form potassium chloride (KCl), demonstrating a typical ionic reaction. Iodine, which has a -1 charge, would similarly react with elements from Group 1A that possess a +1 charge, such as cesium, sodium, and lithium. The discussion highlights that while atomic mass is noted, it does not significantly influence reactivity, as electron configuration is the primary factor in chemical reactions. Hydrogen's behavior is an exception due to its unique quantum properties. Overall, elements like Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, and potentially Fr are expected to react with iodine in a manner similar to potassium's reaction with chlorine.
sami23
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Potassium reacts with Chlorine to produce the ionic solid potassium chloride (KCl). Which elements would you predict would react with Iodine in a similar type of reaction?

I know that K has a +1 charge and Cl has a -1 charge.

Iodine has a -1 charge and all the elements in column 1A have a +1 charge.

I deduced that Cesium has a similar type of reaction when combined with Iodine but are there any other elements that would produce a similar reaction?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What led you to Cesium and not the other Group I metals?
 
The atomic mass of K = 39.098 and Cl = 35.453
I = 126.904 and proportionally Cs = 132.905
 
What kind of product will you expect from reaction between sodium and iodine? Lithium? Any group I metal? Aren't they similar?
 
I guess I would include elements: Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, and Fr but I'm not sure about Hydrogen which is not an alkali metal. Is that correct?
 
The actual atomic mass of atoms does not really have too much of an effect on their reactivity*. Chemical reactions involve atomic/molecular orbitals, so the electrons are the really important part. Atomic mass is important only insofar as it affects the number of electrons that the atom has.

*This is not true for hydrogen and other sufficiently light atoms where certain quantum effects become important.
 
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