Why is N2 less reactive than H2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alingy1
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
N2 is less reactive than H2 primarily due to its triple bond, which consists of one sigma bond and two pi-bonds, making it more stable and resistant to breaking. The bond dissociation energy for N2 is significantly higher at about 946 kJ/mol compared to H2's 436 kJ/mol, indicating that more energy is required to break N2 bonds. Additionally, N2 has a full valence shell, contributing to its lower reactivity. In contrast, H2's single bond is easier to break, allowing for greater reactivity. Overall, the structural and energetic differences between N2 and H2 explain their reactivity levels.
alingy1
Messages
325
Reaction score
0
Why would N2 be less reactive than H2?
I found out that N2 has a three link bond, which partly explains it. But, what else could I add? Unfortunately, nitrogen is more electronegative than hydrogen so I cannot add that as an explanation...
Could I say that hydrogen needs to lose or gain 1 electron instead of 3 for nitrogen? Could that really describe reactivity? Anything else?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're on the right track.

H2 consists of one sigma bond (overlapping s-orbitals). N2 consists of a triple bond composed of one sigma bond and two pi-bonds (overlapping p-orbitals). This triple bond, and the fact that N2 has a full valance shell, means N2 just doesn't want to break apart easily relative to the single bond of H2.

Quantitatively, H2 has bond dissolution energy of about 436 kJ/mol, and N2 has bond dissolution energy of about 946 kJ/mol. It takes much more energy to break N2 bonds than H2 bonds.
 
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