Talk:Reactivity series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Previous respondents: I am a professional metals chemist. This series is indeed correct. If you read the article carefully, you will find the explanation. This series, and perhaps your confusion relating to the UK-US difference, is a RE-activity series, where most likely an American text book will show you an Activity series. K is indeed more reactive than Na, which is indeed more reactive than Li. This can be proven with a simple experiment in which you drop a small piece of each metal into separate beakers of water. The reason, as described below, is that reactivity increases as you go down a group on the Periodic Table. Li finds its valence (outer shell, reacting) electrons in the second shell, relatively close to the nucleus, from which the protons exhert a hold on the electrons. Na finds its valence electrons is the third shell, slightly farther away from the nucleus and therefore the protons exhibit less attractive force on the valence electrons. Consequently, Na loses that valence electron just a little bit easier that Li does. And so on, all the way down to Francium. Before you post to a public forum, please educate yourself to the facts. As one respondent notes below, s/he is no chemistry expert. Why, then, are you trying to provide an explanation for something youobviously don't understand? 216.41.78.78Mercury42

KOH + Li

^^ I think what he was implying is "isn't Li more reactive than K?" I'm no chemistry expert though.

No. Reactivity increases as one goes down group one due to increasing size of atom and a weakening hold on the outermost election. The most reactive is therefore Francium. But that is a very uncommon element indeed. This table reflects common elements and this is what is commonly taught (in UK schools at least). --LukeSurl 18:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that LukeSurl is right, however, I searched other websites. [1]Give me confusing results, even the equasion they used at the start for examples. I thought Zinc could only react in acid, and not water. Clarification anyone?

This series definitely is wrong. Li should be at the top (http://www.unr.edu/sb204/geology/mas.html). I think there are other errors too.--gregory.brockman

Don't belive everything you read. This rather page from the BBC [2] would suggest otherwise, as well as a host of other pages. It appears there is a US-UK thing going on here. US pages suggest a Lithium headed table whilst UK pages a Pottasium headed one (though there are exceptions in either case). It would appear that it depends upon how one defines the series.

Some searching reveals that the UK tables are defined by displacement reactions and the US ones upon Standard electrode potential as the list corresponds exactly with that of Table_of_standard_electrode_potentials.

Thus for the considerations and qualifiers given in the article, which I will now reinforce, the Potassium table is applicable--LukeSurl 13:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I have to say silver reacts with acids, so why is it not higher on the table?

[edit] Reeactivity

I think this statement needs more clarification.

Metals with a greater total number of electrons tend to be more reactive as their outermost electrons (the ones which will be lost) exist further from the positive nucleus and therefore they are held less strongly.

For instance, Lead has more electrons than Lithium, yet Lithium is more reactive. I suggest this phrasing.

Heavy metals tend to have their valence electrons in a shell further from the nucleus, so tend to give them up more easily because the nucleus imparts weaker attractive force on them.