What is the max. # of electrons located in the ground state?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around determining the maximum number of electrons in various atomic configurations and energy levels. Participants confirm that the maximum for a beryllium atom is 4, while the third energy level can hold up to 18 electrons, not 10 as initially suggested. The maximum for the d sublevel is 10, and the f sublevel can accommodate 14 electrons. Some answers, like those for the calcium atom and the 4d sublevel of cadmium, require further verification against the periodic table. Overall, the thread emphasizes the importance of understanding electron configurations in relation to atomic structure.
Tonia
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
< Mentor Note -- thread moved to HH from the technical chemistry forum, so no HH Template is shown >[/color]

I need someone to check my answers and help me with the questions I couldn't answer.

What is the max. # of electrons located in the groud state of

a) an orbital 2
b) d sublevel 10
c) Be atom 4 because 1s^2 2s^2 = 4 electrons
d) 3rd energy level = 10
e) f sublevel 14
f) a Ca atom 2
g) 4p sublevel of As 3
h) 3d sublevel of Cr 4
i) 5s sublevel of Sr 5 because the last one is 5s^2
J) 5th energy level of Br ?
k) 4d sublevel of Cd ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
For i) i meant to say 2 electrons
 
At first sight abce are OK, others are either wrong (like d) or require checking periodic table (like gh).
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top