Understanding NH3 & NH4+ Complex Ion Formations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jan Hill
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Complex Ion
AI Thread Summary
NH3 readily forms complex ions with transition elements due to its ability to act as a Lewis base, donating a lone pair of electrons to the metal center. In contrast, NH4+ does not form such complexes because it is a positively charged ion that lacks the necessary electron pair for donation. Transition metals have low-energy empty orbitals that can accommodate the electron pairs from NH3, facilitating complex formation. The preference of transition elements to release H+ ions rather than accept them further supports this behavior. Overall, the differences in electron donation capabilities between NH3 and NH4+ explain their contrasting interactions with transition metals.
Jan Hill
Messages
63
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Why does NH3 readily form complex ions with the transition elements but NH4+ does not?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Is it because the transition elements are much more receptive to reacting with a base than with an acid because in fact the transition elements would much prefer to give up an H+ rather than accept one.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Draw the lewis structures for both of these (easy!) and you will see why. It is a little more complex than just acid/base.

Hint: Transition metals usually have empty orbitals of fairly low energy.
 
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...
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