Strontium and Ammonia: Forming Sr[NH3]6

Thread starter Puchinita5
Start date Mar 29, 2013
Tags

Ammonia

AI Thread Summary

Strontium reacts with ammonia to form the complex Sr[NH3]6. Predicting this formation is challenging as it involves understanding amide complexes, which are not intuitive. Knowledge of coordination chemistry is essential to grasp why this specific complex forms. The reaction highlights the need for familiarity with various metal-ammonia interactions in inorganic chemistry. Understanding these concepts is crucial for solving similar problems in the future.

Mar 29, 2013

Puchinita5

Homework Statement

I had a problem in inorganic chemistry that required I know what forms when strontium dissolves in ammonia. Looking at the answer, it says that

Sr + NH3 ---> Sr[NH3]6

I'm not sure how I would have been able to predict that this is what formed.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

Physics news on Phys.org

Mar 30, 2013

AGNuke

Gold Member

You can't. Its an ammide complex. You need to know it.

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 »