Difference Between Electron & Valence Shells - Explained

AI Thread Summary
Electron shells are defined by their quantum number n, indicating energy levels with specific electron capacities, such as 2 for n=1 and 8 for n=2. Valence shells refer to the outermost orbitals involved in chemical reactions, which can vary in electron capacity. The filling order of orbitals, where 4s is filled before 3d despite the latter not being fully occupied, is due to energy levels; 4s has a lower energy than 3d. This pattern continues in higher periods, where s orbitals fill before d and f orbitals. Understanding these concepts is crucial for grasping chemical behavior and electron configuration.
Ratzinger
Messages
291
Reaction score
0
I would like to get clarified the difference between electron shells and valence shells.
Electron shell is defined by quantum number n, the energy level. So there are 2e in n=1, 8e in n=2, 18e in n=3, 32e in n=4 and so on.
But what is the exact defintion of valence shells, ecxept that the 1st takes 2, the 2th 8, the 3th 8, the 4th 18 electrons and so on?

Why does element 19 start with 4s^1 even though all the 3d orbitals are not filled yet? Why is not first one entire electron shell completed before starting to fill a new one?

thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The valence 'shells' or 'orbitals' are the outermost 'orbitals' and are available for chemical rections. Also remember that there are limited chemical reactions due to the limited number of non-metallic elements, e.g. halides, O, S, P, C, and so on. When metals are mixed, the result is an alloy, which is different than a chemical compound.

If one looks at the orbital wave equations for the 3d and 4s, the 4s would show lower energy levels than the 3d shells. Similarly for periods 5, 6 and 7, the s orbital fills before the d and f shells of the previous periods.

See the order in which shells are filled here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table#Explanation_of_the_structure_of_the_periodic_table
 
thanks Astronuc

I also found a nice explanation to my problem in Linus Pauling "General Chemistry" on page 138 (Dover). Great book and a cheap buy.
 
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