hypervalent_iodine

This is rather unhelpful. A list of Wikipedia facts about each chemical won't address the problem of a lack of basic understanding.

It is not that we are unwilling to help. The issue is that you appear to lack the very basic understanding required to even approach the questions you posted. It is too much of an undertaking for strangers on an Internet forum to try and fill those gaps when they are so large. What I was trying to suggest to you was that you first need to go away and study from the text book / your lecture notes. The things you need to know will be summarised there. If you are struggling to understand specific concepts, then you can ask questions and we can help to clarify things. What you are doing now is asking extremely broad questions, and there is little point in us trying to answer them in the ground-up fashion you require since your textbook already does this. To repeat, go and study the concepts you have already covered in class. Consult Google if you think you are still lacking the foundational knowledge to comprehend what you are being taught (for instance, if you don't know what an atom is, or what is meant by covalent, polar covalent, ionic bonds, etc., you need to go and read up - I suggest starting with the beginning of your text book), or ask here and we can try and point you in the right direction of where to look. Once you have done this, then go back and attempt the questions you originally posted here. If you are still stuck, identify which parts of the question you do understand, and then which parts you don't understand and ask here for help on those parts.

I find it hard to believe that your university is just giving you questions sheets with no attempt to teach you the content. Do you have lecture notes? Text books? It seems to me like you need to address your fundamental understanding through independent study. Our help will be of little use to you otherwise.

We understood the questions Presumably, the idea is that you should be able to deduce certain things about their properties by simply looking at their structures. Could you perhaps answer studiot's earlier question about what exactly you do know?

Not from my end. The OP would have to do this themself.

I think what studiot is getting at is that, if you don't know much about the chemicals, then the questions are pitched a few levels above where you're actually at in terms of your understanding. He also gave you some very good starting places for how to answer the questions. The issue is that if you do not know how to approach the subject matter, explaining / rewording the questions for you won't help. I would recommend going over the coursework you have learnt leading up to these questions, and then come back and reconsider where you are stuck. We are better positioned to help you once you reach that point, and have some specific / more informed questions.

Like I said, it depends on the conditions.

Is this homework?

I should add: the isocyanate will I think produce CO2 when reacting with water. The acid chloride I assume would have given off a smokey looking gas as well? Both should have become quite warm. I hope you performed these in a fumehood also. Finally, I would recommend getting some help from someone with chemistry experience wherever you are. It sounds to me like you lack synthetic experience and the ability to properly assess risk. Since you are playing with some rather nasty chemicals, there is a huge potential for things to go badly for you.

Isocyanates and acid chlorides are both rather reactive. If you have water in the same flask, they're almost certainly reacting with that.

It depends somewhat on the conditions for some of the reagents you've listed. What is this for?

Are you going to reply to the substantive part of my previous post? And can you stop calling me Mr. It has been pointed out to you several times that I am female.

Er, what? If the electron thing was a red herring then we are once again back to the fact that your sequence is wrong, with no explanation as to why this doesn't matter. Your whole idea relies on this sequence and it's similarity to another sequence. It has been shown to you in detail how and where it is not similar, and rather than admit that maybe you were wrong (there's no shame in that), you instead try to change physics to make it similar. When this is pointed out, suddenly f orbitals don't exist, or it's a red herring. Can you see how this might come across ridiculous? Back to orbitals. It is clear that you do not know what they are, or even the history of how we came to our current understanding. I encourage you to change this and go read up on them. Until you can understand the mathematics and physics that allow us to construct the orbitals we all know and love today, you are in no position to tell anyone that it's wrong (much less propose your own idea). Minor correction. I am a PhD student, I don't tutor them. I tutor chemistry all the way up to third year level. danking, I have not given you any rep points, positive or negative. That's not to say your posts haven't warranted them, though. Rest assured, you are not Galileo.

That is incorrect. The electronic configuration for cadmium is still written with the 4p coming before the the 5s and after the 3d. Your explanation for the differences in p and d orbitals further leads me to believe you don't actually know what orbitals are. They aren't static orbital pathways for electrons. They are probability density maps. Those shapes are just a representation of the space in which you are likely to find a particular electron. This honestly makes no sense. I suggest you start by reviewing the wiki article on atomic orbitals, and then review what you have just said.

No answers yet?

Ms*

1. If the diagram is wrong, why bother showing it? 2. What looks right to you? 3. Yes, thank goodness there are / were people out there much smarter than either of us, who knew what they were doing enough to come up with the periodic table!

No it wouldn't be (please look up what a noble gas is), and no they aren't. They are very clearly different. The periodic table is a form of data organisation. The lanthanides and actinides are where they are because it's easier to look at. If you put them in amongst the transition metals, all you do is make the table wider. It doesn't make Hf a noble gas. It is similar to the add column left / add column right function when you make tables in MS Word. Here is what it looks like if you bump the f block into the table: Your diagrams are, for lack of a better word, meaningless. Why does it matter if they're radioactive or not? That isn't really related to electronic configuration, so it should have no bearing whatsoever on your sequence. Besides, the first two instances where it differs occur in the first half, in the set of naturally occurring elements. You also stated in an earlier post that the sequence similarity holds true into the f block "and beyond." That's been shown to be completely false, so I have to assume then that you're making most of this up as you go.

They aren't fudged. They're placed that way because it's more compact and easier to see. Are you seriously denying the existence of f orbitals? I'm sorry, but you're argument is completely unconvincing. The sequences match, except for that bit in the middle, and please ignore half of the periodic table because those don't match either. That's essentially what you're saying.

Could you possibly respond to the other 95% of my post? The comment about the number 2 was just an aside.

It either matches or it doesn't, and in your case, it doesn't. Let's take it further though. Prime gap sequence: 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 5, 1, 5, 3, 1, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5, 3, 1, 5 Electronic configuration 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 7, 5, 3, 1, 7, 5, 3, 1 Again, more problems. 8 of 20 terms don't match. That's almost half. The sequences do not match. Edit: and this is ignoring that you didn't include 2 in your list of primes, despite it being a prime number. As I said, you can't just change the facts the make it fit what you want. If it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.

So here's the problem. You have completely ignored the basic tenants of how orbitals are populated to make your pattern fit the order you want it to fit. 4p orbitals do not fill before the 3d orbitals do, so this term should come after rather than before. This makes the sequence 1 1 3 1 3 1 5 3 1..., which doesn't match your prime gap sequence. You can't just change physics to make your pattern work.

Okay, lets go through this one thing at a time. The above sequence. Does this show the electronic configuration sequence? Is this the left side of the axis or right?

I have shown you explicitly where and why is doesn't hold, and you have not yet shown me how I am wrong. The f block is absolutely not made up. It is presented that way for a reason, not because they don't belong there.

PS. It would be useful if you quoted members here using the quote function, rather than copy pasting. At the bottom left of the post you wish to respond to is a Quote button.