aommaster Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 If there are any elements that lie directly below francium, then, yes, they would produce a more reactive reaction. But, because no elements have yet been discovered, it the the one which is the most reactive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 the most reactive metal known to man is francium. the most reactive nonmetal known to man is fluorine. tell me if i'm wrong, but i believe that there are an unlimited number of elements since you could keep adding protons to a nucleus in one way or another. as a result, you could get an element with one valence electron that also has a greater atomic radius than francium, which would be more metallic than francium and thus would be more reactive than francium. i do not believe that there is a possible nonmetal that is more active than fluorine since fluorine has the smallest atomic radius for an element with an outermost orbital that is p and has 5 electrons. hydrogen would be more active than fluorine if it didn't have such a low ionization energy, but since it does, it tends not to form hydride ions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aommaster Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 tell me if i'm wrong, but i believe that there are an unlimited number of elements since you could keep adding protons to a nucleus in one way or another. as a result, you could get an element with one valence electron that also has a greater atomic radius than francium, which would be more metallic than francium and thus would be more reactive than francium. YEs, it could go on forever, but, I think there comes a stage where the atom becomes so big, that, the second a proton enters it, one is fired out. i do not believe that there is a possible nonmetal that is more active than fluorine since fluorine has the smallest atomic radius for an element with an outermost orbital that is p and has 5 electrons. Yeah, its exactly the opposite with non-metals. For metals, you try to have a higher number of shells, but for non-metals, the smallest number. Pretty cool of you should tell me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 YEs, it could go on forever, but, I think there comes a stage where the atom becomes so big, that, the second a proton enters it, one is fired out. oh, of course; but hey, that new element was in existence...even though it only existed for a fraction of a second. Yeah, its exactly the opposite with non-metals. For metals, you try to have a higher number of shells, but for non-metals, the smallest number. Pretty cool of you should tell me! right, and so, since F is the most active possible nonmetal, the most active metal must be more active than F since mathematically, the most reactive metal has an infinately large atomic radius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aommaster Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 right, and so, since F is the most active possible nonmetal, the most active metal must be more active than F since mathematically, the most reactive metal has an infinately large atomic radius umm.... yes, i think so. Your theory makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfson Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 I so thought the inital question used a group 2 metal not a group one, for the calculation dont use the molar mass of Na(OH)2 use NaOH, so the pH will not have a 2 x molarity, i though it was 2+(OH)2 my mistake have to look more carefully 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