Electrons are electrons. Why are some elements different?

Thread Starter

hp1729

Joined Nov 23, 2015
2,304
It does give you spin. Just draw one box for each s, three boxes for each p and five for each d orbital. Then, as I said above, if you see 3d6, that means the 3d orbital has 6 electrons. Just fill in each of the five boxes with one electron (all in the same direction) and then add the sixth to any box in the other direction to make a pair.

the post I made about filling order, those orbitals in a single line (without a curve) can be grouped as one "valence shell". So, Iron's valence shell is made up of a 4s and 3p orbitals. 2 in s, 6 in p.

PS, this seems a lot like a homework question, should it be relocated?
Okay, I see the pattern you are talking about in iron, cobalt and nickel. I've got a huge excel file that lists all the elements and their spin. It won't let me upload an excel file and converted to pdf it is still way over 1 M byte so I can't upload it as a pdf file. It also won't let me upload it as a html file.
Can I email it to you. :) My email is ...

It still doesn't really give me a clear answer. Other elements are ferromagnetic, as are various compounds and oddities like lithium gas at 1K.
Mn and Cr also have all those d shell electrons spinning in one direction but they are not ferromagnetic.
Elements in the neighborhood of 41 to 45 and 74 to 78 also have that d-shell with the same electron spins but they are not ferromagnetic. Gd and Dy (64 and 66) are listed as ferromagnetic but lack this characteristic spin.

Thank you very much for your time on this.



No, not homework. Retirement. Trying to get a grasp on something I never made sense of.
Filling order must be my question. I will have to take some time to get a handle on this. Thank you.
It does give you spin. Just draw one box for each s, three boxes for each p and five for each d orbital. Then, as I said above, if you see 3d6, that means the 3d orbital has 6 electrons. Just fill in each of the five boxes with one electron (all in the same direction) and then add the sixth to any box in the other direction to make a pair.

the post I made about filling order, those orbitals in a single line (without a curve) can be grouped as one "valence shell". So, Iron's valence shell is made up of a 4s and 3p orbitals. 2 in s, 6 in p.

PS, this seems a lot like a homework question, should it be relocated?

Mods Edit :
Please don't post Email address on Forum, it could be bring the spammer to forum and you.
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
Okay, I see the pattern you are talking about in iron, cobalt and nickel. I've got a huge excel file that lists all the elements and their spin. It won't let me upload an excel file and converted to pdf it is still way over 1 M byte so I can't upload it as a pdf file. It also won't let me upload it as a html file.
Can I email it to you. :) My email is xxx

It still doesn't really give me a clear answer. Other elements are ferromagnetic, as are various compounds and oddities like lithium gas at 1K.
Mn and Cr also have all those d shell electrons spinning in one direction but they are not ferromagnetic.
Elements in the neighborhood of 41 to 45 and 74 to 78 also have that d-shell with the same electron spins but they are not ferromagnetic. Gd and Dy (64 and 66) are listed as ferromagnetic but lack this characteristic spin.

Thank you very much for your time on this.



No, not homework. Retirement. Trying to get a grasp on something I never made sense of.
Filling order must be my question. I will have to take some time to get a handle on this. Thank you.
The iron, cobalt nickel trio are the only elements to do exhibit ferromagnetism at room temperature. The others must be cooled and, even then, the ferromagnetic effect is minimal vs iron. The idea of unpaired electrons is kind of the first criteria to becoming a magnet.

Look at Wikipedia and read about
- exchange energy. Solids are held together by some type of electrostatic charge, dipole or induced dipole-dipole interactions. Metal atoms are held by the weaker forces (induced dipole) but also exchange energy. This used to be called metallic binding (as a third option with ionic and covalent bonding). Wikipedia does a good job describing how exchange energy plays a role in magnetism.

Magnetic domains.
Again, the Wikipedia page on ferromagnetism has a section on magnetic domains that is good to read.

 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

hp1729

Joined Nov 23, 2015
2,304
The iron, cobalt nickel trio are the only elements to do exhibit ferromagnetism at room temperature. The others must be cooled and, even then, the ferromagnetic effect is minimal vs iron. The idea of unpaired electrons is kind of the first criteria to becoming a magnet.

Look at Wikipedia and read about
- exchange energy. Solids are held together by some type of electrostatic charge, dipole or induced dipole-dipole interactions. Metal atoms are held by the weaker forces (induced dipole) but also exchange energy. This used to be called metallic binding (as a third option with ionic and covalent bonding). Wikipedia does a good job describing how exchange energy plays a role in magnetism.

Magnetic domains.
Again, the Wikipedia page on ferromagnetism has a section on magnetic domains that is good to read.

< :) > It takes me more than read through to digest these things. </ :) >


“Only atoms with partially filled shells (i.e., unpaired spins) can have a net magnetic moment, so ferromagnetism only occurs in materials with partially filled shells.”

But this describes more than just iron, nickel and cobalt

Attached is a thinned down version of my excel file. The full file breaks down the spins and is wwiiddee.
(Still reading.)
 

Attachments

Thread Starter

hp1729

Joined Nov 23, 2015
2,304
< :) > It takes me more than read through to digest these things. </ :) >


“Only atoms with partially filled shells (i.e., unpaired spins) can have a net magnetic moment, so ferromagnetism only occurs in materials with partially filled shells.”

But this describes more than just iron, nickel and cobalt

Attached is a thinned down version of my excel file. The full file breaks down the spins and is wwiiddee.
(Still reading.)
Okay, I can see temperature being a factor. Again the question "why".
Is size the question? Does temperature influence the size of the atoms?

Re: "Why?" the video.
< :) > Why is it that when you ask some people a question instead of admitting they don't know they go into a long winded story of why it is so complicated using vague analogies. </ :) >

Yes, I think all the answers presented are on the right track. Yes, it is spin, but that just seems an incomplete answer to me, so far.
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,224
Yes, I think all the answers presented are on the right track. Yes, it is spin, but that just seems an incomplete answer to me, so far.
I was thinking the same thing, late last night. It's an amazing model which Gopher has presented, but it's still a model. Making the jump from reading it to believing it resembles the change from studying electronics to building stuff and seeing it work. That's when the believing sinks in.

Now, how are you going to make the jump from seeing to believing with THIS set of ideas?
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
< :) > It takes me more than read through to digest these things. </ :) >


“Only atoms with partially filled shells (i.e., unpaired spins) can have a net magnetic moment, so ferromagnetism only occurs in materials with partially filled shells.”

But this describes more than just iron, nickel and cobalt

Attached is a thinned down version of my excel file. The full file breaks down the spins and is wwiiddee.
(Still reading.)

As I said, the "more than one unpaired electron" is a first screening criteria. Then it is hit-or-miss after that. They way atoms crystallize (magnetic domains) and the exchange interactions (exchange energy) they happen to have are much less predictable (almost random). Which brings us to a previous complaint you had...

"They behave differently because they are different" doesn't answer the question. I am looking for a chart of the elements that shows those spin arrows for all the elements.
And, as I said earlier, there are still active research efforts at major universities around the world. The funding is generally from an energy and military departments. Understanding how or why atoms and molecules crystalize the way they do or how to alter the domains and exchange interactions could allow lighter or stronger ferromagnetic materials, for example.

Sorry, but I have come to the end of my road in terms of being able to explain the how's and whys of magnetism. And, it is not unusual to read a page like that Wikipedia mess a couple times, read the detailed page on exchange interaction and magnetic domains and then back to ferromagnetism.
 

Thread Starter

hp1729

Joined Nov 23, 2015
2,304
I was thinking the same thing, late last night. It's an amazing model which Gopher has presented, but it's still a model. Making the jump from reading it to believing it resembles the change from studying electronics to building stuff and seeing it work. That's when the believing sinks in.

Now, how are you going to make the jump from seeing to believing with THIS set of ideas?
Seeing? Believing? Understanding is somewhere in this picture.
No complete picture ... yet.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
23,415
I gave up trying to understand some aspects of the universe a long time ago. Chemistry was one of the sciences I decided this with.

Didn't stop me from playing though.
 

Efe Utku

Joined Jan 18, 2016
1
No, it is not about the valence electrons but more about the delocalized electrons an element has.
Delocalized electrons exist in the structure of solid metals. Metallic structure consists of aligned cations in a sea of delocalized electrons. This means that the electrons are free to move throughout the structure, and gives rise to properties such as conductivity. (Wikipedia)
So, you don't have to specifically get into quantum; just look from the bigger picture.
 

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,928
The standard model(which is a quantum model) can only give you a math explanation, which is without physical cause or physical structure.

The classical model, Parson's Magneton model of 1915, gives physical cause and structure of the magnetic field.

This model has been re-studied and computer modeled in the last few decades. This model explains and predicts the periodic table much more accurately than the standard model.

It also explains the physical cause of mass and gravity.

And it gives modern science, the Universal Force Law.

No quantum foam, no dark energy, and no curved space needed.

Mass and inertia is nothing but charge in resonance. If you understand electronics, you can understand the universe.

No phd or secret handshake needed.
 
Top