Regular chemistry electron configuration help

AI Thread Summary
Transition metals commonly form +1 or +2 ions primarily due to the loss of their s orbital electrons, which are considered valence electrons. These s electrons are located at a higher energy level and are more easily lost compared to d electrons. Understanding this concept is crucial for grasping the behavior of transition metals in chemical reactions. The discussion highlights the importance of electron configurations in predicting ion formation. Assistance is sought for better comprehension ahead of an upcoming test.
bobby189
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Why do transition metals tend to form +1/+2 ions? Take electron configurations into account so that I can better understand this "easy" concept.2. The attempt at a solution
I think it has to do with the s orbitals. These, I think are valence electrons that are easily lost... most have 2 s electrons at a high energy level, so it makes sense to lose those first.

Thanks for the help!
Bobby Lee
Florida
 
Physics news on Phys.org
please! Will anyone attempt to help me out here? I have a test Thursday! This is sooooo hard!
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Chemistry: Electron Configurations & Reactivity
Replies
4
Views
3K
How Do You Determine the Electron Configuration for Cd2+?
Replies
2
Views
3K
Do all transition metals have the n2 and (n-1)d orbitals?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Help with Atomic Calcium Electron Configurations
Replies
11
Views
3K
Chemistry How do we know ##BF_3## has Lewis structure but ##Al_2S_3## does not?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Chemistry: Electron Configuration of Manganese Cation
Replies
8
Views
56K
Why are some d-electron configurations more stable? (1st row)
Replies
4
Views
2K
Counting d-electrons in M(I) transition metals
Replies
4
Views
2K
[Chemistry] How many electrons an element will gain or lose?
Replies
6
Views
10K
A Yes, there is a typo. The correct electronic configuration for Yb+ is 4f146s.
Replies
1
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top