electrons? Do we need two electrons from sodium or silver? Is two electrons enough for aluminum or chromium?More
Upvote
VOTE
Downvote
Zinc has last sub orbital as $\mathrm{4s^2}$ which it gives willingly to become electronically stable. Also, zinc's pull on its last electronic shells is much less and is hence more willing to combine. Copper has a last sub-orbital as $\mathrm{4s^1}$ which decreases its capacity to form bonds like zinc. Ideally, copper should form more bonds but due to lack of electrons in the last shell, it cannot form many bonds.
Zinc has last sub orbital as $\mathrm{4s^2}$ which it gives willingly to become electronically stable. Also, zinc's pull on its last electronic shells is much less and is hence more willing to combine. Copper has a last sub-orbital as $\mathrm{4s^1}$ which decreases its capacity to form bonds like zinc. Ideally, copper should form more bonds but due to lack of electrons in the last shell, it cannot form many bonds.
Zinc's relatively higher reactivity than copper is not because its highest occupied atomic orbital is $\ce{4s^2}$ while copper's is $\ce{4s^1}$; according to that magnesium should be more reactive than sodium as the highest occupied atomic orbital is $\ce{3s^2}$ while for sodium it is $\ce{3s^1}$. Therefore, this is not the case.
Now, the question that arises is: what is the real reason zinc is more reactive than copper?
The answer is that zinc is able to lose its outer electron more readily than copper. This phenomena occurs because copper metal is able to delocalize its outer electrons more readily than zinc. The metallic bond of copper is therefore stronger than zinc, so more energy is required to break this bond in order for it to react. Since more energy is required for copper to react, we can say that zinc is more reactive than copper.
Zinc's relatively higher reactivity than copper is not because its highest occupied atomic orbital is $\ce{4s^2}$ while copper's is $\ce{4s^1}$; according to that magnesium should be more reactive than sodium as the highest occupied atomic orbital is $\ce{3s^2}$ while for sodium it is $\ce{3s^1}$. Therefore, this is not the case.
Now, the question that arises is: what is the real reason zinc is more reactive than copper?
The answer is that zinc is able to lose its outer electron more readily than copper. This phenomena occurs because copper metal is able to delocalize its outer electrons more readily than zinc. The metallic bond of copper is therefore stronger than zinc, so more energy is required to break this bond in order for it to react. Since more energy is required for copper to react, we can say that zinc is more reactive than copper.
You have to think about the whole process. When a metal loses electrons to make a metal ion the following happens:
In your analysis you are only focusing on step 2. The enthalpy and entropy of the entire process factor into the reduction potential.
You have to think about the whole process. When a metal loses electrons to make a metal ion the following happens:
In your analysis you are only focusing on step 2. The enthalpy and entropy of the entire process factor into the reduction potential.
More
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
Zinc has last sub orbital as $\mathrm{4s^2}$ which it gives willingly to become electronically stable. Also, zinc's pull on its last electronic shells is much less and is hence more willing to combine. Copper has a last sub-orbital as $\mathrm{4s^1}$ which decreases its capacity to form bonds like zinc. Ideally, copper should form more bonds but due to lack of electrons in the last shell, it cannot form many bonds.
Zinc has last sub orbital as $\mathrm{4s^2}$ which it gives willingly to become electronically stable. Also, zinc's pull on its last electronic shells is much less and is hence more willing to combine. Copper has a last sub-orbital as $\mathrm{4s^1}$ which decreases its capacity to form bonds like zinc. Ideally, copper should form more bonds but due to lack of electrons in the last shell, it cannot form many bonds.
More
VOTE
Zinc's relatively higher reactivity than copper is not because its highest occupied atomic orbital is $\ce{4s^2}$ while copper's is $\ce{4s^1}$; according to that magnesium should be more reactive than sodium as the highest occupied atomic orbital is $\ce{3s^2}$ while for sodium it is $\ce{3s^1}$. Therefore, this is not the case.
Now, the question that arises is: what is the real reason zinc is more reactive than copper?
The answer is that zinc is able to lose its outer electron more readily than copper. This phenomena occurs because copper metal is able to delocalize its outer electrons more readily than zinc. The metallic bond of copper is therefore stronger than zinc, so more energy is required to break this bond in order for it to react. Since more energy is required for copper to react, we can say that zinc is more reactive than copper.
Zinc's relatively higher reactivity than copper is not because its highest occupied atomic orbital is $\ce{4s^2}$ while copper's is $\ce{4s^1}$; according to that magnesium should be more reactive than sodium as the highest occupied atomic orbital is $\ce{3s^2}$ while for sodium it is $\ce{3s^1}$. Therefore, this is not the case.
Now, the question that arises is: what is the real reason zinc is more reactive than copper?
The answer is that zinc is able to lose its outer electron more readily than copper. This phenomena occurs because copper metal is able to delocalize its outer electrons more readily than zinc. The metallic bond of copper is therefore stronger than zinc, so more energy is required to break this bond in order for it to react. Since more energy is required for copper to react, we can say that zinc is more reactive than copper.
More
VOTE