April 17, 2021, 10:36:10 PM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Which has the larger atomic radius, S2- or K+ ?  (Read 24243 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

happydude

  • Guest
Which has the larger atomic radius, S2- or K+ ?
« on: April 30, 2006, 09:06:45 AM »
Hi,

Which has the larger atomic radius, S2- or K+ ?  Both have the same electron configuration 1S2 2S2 2P6 3S2 3P6 but I'm thinking that since K+ has more protons, it would attract the electrons more, causing the electron cloud to be smaller - hence a smaller radius than S2-.  Is this correct?
Thanks

Earl
« Last Edit: May 20, 2006, 12:50:49 PM by Mitch »

Offline xiankai

  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • Mole Snacks: +77/-37
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atomic Radius
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2006, 11:53:41 AM »
sounds alrite to me
one learns best by teaching

Offline edimerz

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21
  • Mole Snacks: +1/-6
Re: Atomic Radius
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2006, 12:12:54 AM »
First let's prove that : K+ < S2-

These two are isoelectronic species (they both have 18 electrons). So, the difference between their ionic radii comes down to the difference in their nuclear charge. K+ has 19 protons while S2- only has 16. Due to the larger nuclear charge, K+ must necessarily be smaller (as the attraction towards the nucleus is greater).

Now compare K and S2-

K must be bigger because you are just starting to fill the 4th shell, while S2- only has electrons in 3 shells. However as you go along the period from K to Ca, Sc, etc. the radius decreases making the judgement difficult. This argument is not complete, as it does not compare nuclear charges. While S2- has a smaller nuclear charge thanK, the increase in radius due to this, is not sufficient to overcome the incresing size due to the addition of a new shell. In fact, P3-, which would be bigger than S2- (by the isoelectronic species argument), is still smaller than K.

Warning : Don't not use the Isoelectronic Species comparison to the Noble Gases. They can be weird ! :yuck:

wow man thanks for the help here... this question was getting to me

one of those questions i guess when you finally get the answer its like "What the hell i should have known that!"


From the web

Offline mike

  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1246
  • Mole Snacks: +121/-35
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atomic Radius
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2006, 12:23:34 AM »
edimerz: did you read this before you copied it from the physics forum?
There is no science without fancy, and no art without facts.

Offline edimerz

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21
  • Mole Snacks: +1/-6
Re: Atomic Radius
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2006, 03:36:11 AM »
Yes

Offline edimerz

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21
  • Mole Snacks: +1/-6
Re: Atomic Radius
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2006, 04:12:17 AM »
I just figured from the rules of posting:

8.) Please do a Search before posting a new topic. There is no need to take double the space on our servers hosting a topic that has already been discussed previously.

Sorry, for posting it again.
Mikey.

Offline syko sykes

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
  • Mole Snacks: +12/-10
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atomic Radius
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2006, 12:54:22 PM »
make sure what you're posting is actually relevant to the topic you're posting it in edimerz. happydude had essentially already answered his own question and it had already been confirmed as correct so unless you have something that debates that there is no further need to post

sorry for wasting a post ranting but i felt it needed to be done... here i'll try and contribute something too

the electrons in each atom experience the same amount of sheilding so you (happydude) would be correct in thinking that the Sulfur atom would be smaller due to greater attractive forces from the protons
AP Chemistry Squad Member [V]

Sponsored Links