Why Does Melting Temperature Increase from Sodium to Aluminium?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jsmith613
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Periodic Trends
AI Thread Summary
The melting temperature increases from sodium to aluminum due to the stronger metallic bonding in aluminum, which has a higher number of delocalized electrons compared to sodium. While sodium has a simpler structure with weaker ionic interactions, aluminum's more complex arrangement leads to greater stability and higher melting points. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the role of ions in metallic bonding, despite initial confusion about their relevance. The markscheme indicates that ions should be considered in the explanation, reinforcing the connection between atomic structure and melting temperature. Ultimately, the relationship between atomic structure and melting points is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
jsmith613
Messages
609
Reaction score
0
Explain why the melting temperature increases from sodium to aluminium.

Why does it have to do with ions and not atoms?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the question is about melting metals - ions have nothing to do with it.
 
Borek said:
If the question is about melting metals - ions have nothing to do with it.

The markscheme clearly stated that ions must be mentioned (the question is copied word for word)
 
jsmith613 said:
The markscheme clearly stated that ions must be mentioned (the question is copied word for word)

As it stated this as the answer, is it now possible to answer the original question
 
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