thedarkshade Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Hi guys! Reactivity and ionization energy are in a way the opposite from each other. I mean, with the increase of the ionization energy, reactivity drops. That's why inert gases have very very low reactivity, because of their high ionization energy. But when learning at school for Group 17 elements there is a paragraph that states: "Reactivity in this group decreases starting from F to I." Ionization energy decreases when going down groups, and normally reactivity should increase. But according to that previous quote reactivity decreases with the decrease in ionization energy:eek: :eek: . Now how right is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 The question to ask is whether the elements, when bonding, donate or receive electrons. The earlier halogens require more energy to lose an electron, but also give out more than the later halogens when they receive one - which is how they bond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Group SEVENTEEN? No, the Halogens are Group Seven. and what you have to remember is that the Further you go Down a group the further the outer Electrons are from the Nucleus, so it`s a little easier n=1 to n=2 ionisations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Group SEVENTEEN? No, the Halogens are Group Seven. That's a matter of convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 and standard convention says it's group VIIA. i have only ever seen 1 paper deviate from that convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 the Best you can hope for is VIIA. the D Block are IIIB to IIB, it`s never counted as 17 for the halogens, IUPAC doesn`t support it either as far as I`m aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 and standard convention says it's group VIIA. i have only ever seen 1 paper deviate from that convention. I use constants of 57 and 1/114 pi when doing fourier analysis and synthesis AND THAT'S THE WAY I LIKES IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 the problem Using "17" is that he mentioned F to I and the 17 part doesn`t come into it until you get half way down to Bromine F = He 2S2 2P5 Cl = Ne 3S2 3P5 now the "17" may start Br = Ar 3D10 4S2 4P5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Testo Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Yeah i know i learn't the halogens as group 7 but now they are group 17 (new IUPAC) and told to teach them as such... http://www.dayah.com/periodic/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedarkshade Posted November 24, 2007 Author Share Posted November 24, 2007 That's a matter of convention. Yeah, that's right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Yeah i know i learn't the halogens as group 7 but now they are group 17 (new IUPAC) and told to teach them as such... http://www.dayah.com/periodic/ well that Dayah guy is a Moron for a start, La and Ac are NOT F Block elements! they are D block, 4F starts with Ce and 5F with Th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Testo Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 well that Dayah guy is a Moron for a start, La and Ac are NOT F Block elements!they are D block, 4F starts with Ce and 5F with Th. I'm not sure where he quotes them as being F block (although the links to wikipedia do), he writes the lanthanides and actinides underneath the rest of the table which is quite common so i guess it's a little unfair to call him a moron. Perhaps Peter Atkins is also a moron for following the same convention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now