Chemistry How many moles of valence electrons are in 1 mole of nitride ions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter xiphoid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ion Mole Moles
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the number of moles of valence electrons in 1 mole of nitride ions (N3-), concluding that there are 8 electrons. However, the existence of nitride ions is debated, with some participants arguing that they are a myth, while others assert that nitrides can form ionic compounds. The conversation highlights the distinction between nitride ions in aqueous form and their presence in ionic lattices. Participants also discuss the nature of nitrides and their comparison to other compounds like carbides and hydrides, emphasizing their polar covalent characteristics rather than purely ionic ones. Ultimately, the discussion reveals a complex understanding of nitride ions and their behavior in different chemical contexts.
xiphoid
Messages
57
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The number of moles of valence electrons in 1 mole nitride ions are?


Homework Equations


Nitride ion- N3-


The Attempt at a Solution


The number of electrons are 8.
Therefore number of moles should also be 8?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nitride ion : N3-. The one you mentioned is Azide ion : N3-.

The rest is correct.
 
That was my typing mistake!
AGNuke said:
Nitride ion : N3-. The one you mentioned is Azide ion : N3-.

The rest is correct.
 
Quite irrelevant to your homework, but the nitride ion is a complete and utter myth. (In spite of what a lot of textbook writers, who really should know better, have to say).

If you could manage to get a nitrogen atom to accept two extra electrons -- in itself a most unlikely feat -- the extra repulsion of those two negative charges to an incoming negatively charged electron would make it quite impossible for the electron to remain anywhere near that particular atom/ion.
 
JohnRC said:
the nitride ion is a complete and utter myth.

Maybe. But Nitrides "exists" in ionic lattice, explain that. But I support the fact that Nitride ions are not present in aqueous form or "maybe" in independent (gaseous) form, but don't outright its existence altogether. This I know that Nitride forms ionic compounds, not covalent compounds.

Come on, even Carbides, Hydrides are present, so why not Nitride? I am pretty sure hydride suffers more than Nitride, as its ionic radius is equivalent to Bromide(!). I would really like to know what you think. You argument seems... weak. Ion will have high potential energy, worse cases also exist.
 
Last edited:
nitrides and carbides are polar covalent network compounds, not ionic lattices. That is why they are hard and refractory. The best calculation methods available show an average charge of approximately 1 electron (not 3) on nitrogen atoms in any refractory nitride.
With carbides, there are non-refractory carbides, e.g. CaC2, but that is an "acetylide" based (notionally) on C22–, an associate base for acetylene acting as an acid. Metallurgists often, and chemists occasionally like to consider compounds like nitrides in a "formal charge" model, where they assign a formal charge of –3 to the nitrogen atoms in a polar network compound. They similarly tend to regard silica, the standard example of a polar network compound, as formally made up of Si4+ and O2– ions. But it is purely a formal accounting, that has nothing to do with reality.

Consider a calcium nitride lattice with a missing electron, and imagine that the lattice is indeed made up of Ca2+ and N3– ions. Will the missing electron attach itself to a calcium ion (electron affinity 11.9 volt) or a "nitride ion" (electron affinity negative)? Having answered this question, it will become obvious to you why in an imaginary ionic lattice made up of these two ions, nearly all of the valence electrons would migrate from the nitrogen atoms to the calcium atoms, resulting in the polar covalent network solid that we actually observe.
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Back
Top