Transition Metal Periodic Trend -- Stackexchange's answer confuses me

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the trend in melting and boiling points of first series transition elements, particularly focusing on the anomaly observed at chromium. While the melting and boiling points generally increase from scandium to vanadium due to the presence of more unpaired electrons, chromium exhibits a decrease in melting point despite having more unpaired electrons. The explanation provided references half-filled subshell configurations, suggesting that these configurations lead to a maximum effective nuclear charge and reduced interorbital repulsions, which should theoretically stabilize the structure. However, confusion arises regarding the clarity and relevance of this explanation, as it seems to contradict established knowledge about effective nuclear charge and electron shielding in the context of transition metals. The discussion emphasizes the need for a clearer understanding of how these factors interact, particularly in relation to half-filled subshells and their impact on melting points.
adf89812
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Is this stackexchange.com answer bad?
There was a post on stackexchange.com explaining the trend in melting/boiling points of first series transition elements.

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4766/melting-and-boiling-points-of-transition-elements

The specific question was:
The melting and boiling points of transition elements increase from scandium (1530 ∘C1530 ∘C) to vanadium (1917 ∘C1917 ∘C). They increase because as we go across the group, we have more unpaired (free) electrons. But at chromium (1890 ∘C1890 ∘C) however, the melting point decreases even though it has more unpaired electrons than the previous atoms. Why does this happen?

Part of the answer I'm confused about is "In half-filled subshell configurations, there is a maximum in the effective nuclear charge felt by the electrons (compared to the previous elements with no doubly-occupied orbitals) combined with relatively low interorbital repulsions due to the Pauli exclusion principle. "

I don't see how this answers any part of the question. Is it because I'm not understanding it or is it just a bad answer?

I also disagree with it. It contradicts my knowledge. When you compare one row of elements with half-filled subshell configurations with "previous elements with no double-occupied orbital" you're also referring to the further up the current row elements whose valence electrons have less shielding and therefore higher effective nuclear charge.
 
I caught the tail end of a video about a new application for treating chemical or process waste, which is applied to 'red' mud or contaminated bauxite residue, but the person of interest mention recovering critical minerals from consumer electronics, as well as treating mine tailings and processing ores of rare earth elements. What I found so far is the following: New electrical flash method rapidly purifies red mud into strong ceramics, aluminum feedstock...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K