The Student Room Group

Chem a level

Page 4 of 12
What evidence from the diagram supports the fact that no more than three unpaired electrons can be accommodated in the 3p sub-lever?

Can’t upload graph unfortunately but if you know this question please help and explain
Original post by sisterr
Page 4 of 12
What evidence from the diagram supports the fact that no more than three unpaired electrons can be accommodated in the 3p sub-lever?

Can’t upload graph unfortunately but if you know this question please help and explain
if you could take a picture of it or a sc and then press this button here Screenshot 2024-02-27 002949.png you will acc be able to upload the question. if not you could always try to find a link to it online and I can have a look if I know it.

good luck x
Reply 2
Original post by Tatakae L
if you could take a picture of it or a sc and then press this button here Screenshot 2024-02-27 002949.png you will acc be able to upload the question. if not you could always try to find a link to it online and I can have a look if I know it.

good luck x
B9D7D986-23A3-4B30-B92C-6074CA8AA8FA.jpeg Ah thank you!
Original post by sisterr
B9D7D986-23A3-4B30-B92C-6074CA8AA8FA.jpeg Ah thank you!
Because the graph dips from the 3p3 to 3p4 and that is because now a electron with the opposite spin is joining the orbital and therefore there is a slight repultion because of it so the ionisation energy drops because of it. Hope this makes sence <3, if not I can always tag others who might know better than me
Reply 4
Original post by Tatakae L
Because the graph dips from the 3p3 to 3p4 and that is because now a electron with the opposite spin is joining the orbital and therefore there is a slight repultion because of it so the ionisation energy drops because of it. Hope this makes sence <3, if not I can always tag others who might know better than me
Thank u I definitely do understand better. Can you please explain the mark scheme answer I wrote on the page.
Just the part of
“The idea block of 3 elements”
Original post by sisterr
Thank u I definitely do understand better. Can you please explain the mark scheme answer I wrote on the page.
Just the part of
“The idea block of 3 elements”
right idk if this is right, i did atomic structure at the begging of the yr and im still yr 12 lol, butttt, I think it has to do with how across a period you add a electron on everytime and the first 3 orbitals of the p orbitals are filled singly first and so thats the 3 elements because theyre all 1 electron difference and then for the 4th element (so 4 electrons in p subshells) it begins to doubly fill orbitals. Hope this make sence and if not, Like i said i can always tag someone else who might know better than me.
Original post by sisterr
Thank u I definitely do understand better. Can you please explain the mark scheme answer I wrote on the page.
Just the part of
“The idea block of 3 elements”
I can't actually see where you wrote “The idea block of 3 elements”.

But, I suppose you need the answer for part (iv).

There is a drop in ionisation energy from phosphorus to sulfur, indicating that the outer electron in sulfur is higher in energy than that of phosphorus. This is counter to the fact that the nuclear attraction has increased from phosphorus to sulfur, therefore there is another factor to be taken into account and that is the increased inter-electron repulsion of a pair of electrons in the same 'p' orbital.

So, the evidence is the lower than expected 1st ionisation energy of sulfur.
Reply 7
Original post by charco
I can't actually see where you wrote “The idea block of 3 elements”.

But, I suppose you need the answer for part (iv).

There is a drop in ionisation energy from phosphorus to sulfur, indicating that the outer electron in sulfur is higher in energy than that of phosphorus. This is counter to the fact that the nuclear attraction has increased from phosphorus to sulfur, therefore there is another factor to be taken into account and that is the increased inter-electron repulsion of a pair of electrons in the same 'p' orbital.

So, the evidence is the lower than expected 1st ionisation energy of sulfur.
Thanks so much

Quick Reply

Latest