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

AI Thread 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 Summary
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 want to test a humidity sensor with one or more saturated salt solutions. The table salt that I have on hand contains one of two anticaking agents, calcium silicate or sodium aluminosilicate. Will the presence of either of these additives (or iodine for that matter) significantly affect the equilibrium humidity? I searched and all the how-to-do-it guides did not address this question. One research paper I found reported that at 1.5% w/w calcium silicate increased the deliquescent point by...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
I'm trying to find a cheap DIY method to etch holes of various shapes through 0.3mm Aluminium sheet using 5-10% Sodium Hydroxide. The idea is to apply a resist to the Aluminium then selectively ablate it off using a diode laser cutter and then dissolve away the Aluminium using Sodium Hydroxide. By cheap I mean resists costing say £20 in small quantities. The Internet has suggested various resists to try including... Enamel paint (only survived seconds in the NaOH!) Acrylic paint (only...
Back
Top