Today, I learnt about the reaction and did a displacement.

Mainly the displacement reaction,

A+Compound with metal C-----> C + Compound with A

Where A is more reactive than C and it displaces it.

What if A is less reactive than C? I found that some reaction still undergo where most of the reaction.

I found that magnesium displaces iron(II) sulphate very fast.

The reaction involve a large amount of heat released and even steam was produced. Why?

Last, do the non-metals displace similarly? And is hydrogen more reactive than potassium to displace metals?

in reverse order, Hydrogen is less likely to stay in play when presented with potassium metal or (Ion if not already tightly bound).

think about Acids, it`s a substance with a replaceable Hydrogen Ion, H2SO4 think of the H in that, add some K metal and BOOM! you`ll get potassium sulphate, lots of Hydrogen from the H I asked you to remember.

now in the case of rhe Mg and ferric sulphate, the Iron actas a bit like Hydrogen, Iron metal isn`t all that reactive either, but Magnesium is! ok, Mg metal isn`t as reactive as Potassium sure, but it`s still up there with the big boys

 

and so, the Iron Sulphate may as well be an Acid in comparison, making magnesium sulphate and Iron metal for a while until it becomes a Hydroxide, it is a VERY exothermic reaction, consider it similar to WET thermite reaction, using Hydrogen as the mover instead of Oxygen

Plus, if the temperature is elevated enough, the steam will react with the magnesium and generate even more hydrogen.

Is the reactivity directly depended on the electronegativity ?

Yes

How about the bonding strength in a particular molecule?

such as potassium fluoride, stronger or less stronger than francium chloride?

well I have no data on Francium, so I`ll use Cs instead if that`s ok?

 

using Paulings scale of electronegativity to determine percentage of Ionic Charecter.

 

Cs = 0.7 and Cl= 3.0 a difference of 2.3

 

K = 0.8 and F = 4.0 a difference of 3.2

 

as a percentage 2.3 = 74%

and 3.2 = 92%

I`de infere from that KF has a stronger bond than CsCl.

 

I could be wrong, I`m very tired today. Zzzzzz...

"I could be wrong, I`m very tired today. Zzzzzz..."

 

I'm tired all the time! However, I seem to be wrong about 90% of the time.

 

Funny you mention francium chloride. I wonder if it's ever been made. Hey, that brings up a question I've been wondering about for a while: What happens to a bond if the element it's bonded to decays? For example, in the case of uranium oxide. I bet it depends on the type of decay, though. Any info about this?

if it loses Neutrons in the dacay, it`ll simply pass that Oxide onto the new element it becomes after the decay

 

in a billion or so years it`ll become Lead Oxide eventualy (dependant on the dacay type).

well I have no data on Francium' date=' so I`ll use Cs instead if that`s ok?

 

using Paulings scale of electronegativity to determine percentage of Ionic Charecter.

 

Cs = 0.7 and Cl= 3.0 a difference of 2.3

 

K = 0.8 and F = 4.0 a difference of 3.2

 

as a percentage 2.3 = 74%

and 3.2 = 92%

I`de infere from that KF has a stronger bond than CsCl.

 

I could be wrong, I`m very tired today. Zzzzzz...[/quote']

 

 

A factor that governs stability of compounds is the size of ions, by size I mean relative size. Two ions comparable in size would be more stable in a bond than one big and a small ion. That is why if you take NaCl and mix it with KF, you expect to get KCl and NaF.

 

As far as CsCl goes, I don't think you can simply look at difference in electronegativities and comment on its bond strength - its more of a rough estimate (especially since it will also depend on which scale of electronegativity you chose to use)

the Pauling scale as far as I`m aware takes this into account, that`s why I used it

That is why if you take NaCl and mix it with KF, you expect to get KCl and NaF.

i wouldnt be so sure, as the absolute value of the reduction potential for natrium is less than that of kallium

A factor that governs stability of compounds is the size of ions, by size I mean relative size. Two ions comparable in size would be more stable in a bond than one big and a small ion. That is why if you take NaCl and mix it with KF, you expect to get KCl and NaF.F.

Is it the deep meaning of a more reactive displace a less reactive?