Transition Metal Periodic Trend -- Stackexchange's answer confuses me

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the trend in melting and boiling points of first series transition elements, particularly focusing on the anomaly observed at chromium. While the melting and boiling points generally increase from scandium to vanadium due to the presence of more unpaired electrons, chromium exhibits a decrease in melting point despite having more unpaired electrons. The explanation provided references half-filled subshell configurations, suggesting that these configurations lead to a maximum effective nuclear charge and reduced interorbital repulsions, which should theoretically stabilize the structure. However, confusion arises regarding the clarity and relevance of this explanation, as it seems to contradict established knowledge about effective nuclear charge and electron shielding in the context of transition metals. The discussion emphasizes the need for a clearer understanding of how these factors interact, particularly in relation to half-filled subshells and their impact on melting points.
adf89812
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
Is this stackexchange.com answer bad?
There was a post on stackexchange.com explaining the trend in melting/boiling points of first series transition elements.

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4766/melting-and-boiling-points-of-transition-elements

The specific question was:
The melting and boiling points of transition elements increase from scandium (1530 ∘C1530 ∘C) to vanadium (1917 ∘C1917 ∘C). They increase because as we go across the group, we have more unpaired (free) electrons. But at chromium (1890 ∘C1890 ∘C) however, the melting point decreases even though it has more unpaired electrons than the previous atoms. Why does this happen?

Part of the answer I'm confused about is "In half-filled subshell configurations, there is a maximum in the effective nuclear charge felt by the electrons (compared to the previous elements with no doubly-occupied orbitals) combined with relatively low interorbital repulsions due to the Pauli exclusion principle. "

I don't see how this answers any part of the question. Is it because I'm not understanding it or is it just a bad answer?

I also disagree with it. It contradicts my knowledge. When you compare one row of elements with half-filled subshell configurations with "previous elements with no double-occupied orbital" you're also referring to the further up the current row elements whose valence electrons have less shielding and therefore higher effective nuclear charge.
 
Thread 'How to make Sodium Chlorate by Electrolysis of salt water?'
I have a power supply for electrolysis of salt water brine, variable 3v to 6v up to 30 amps. Cathode is stainless steel, anode is carbon rods. Carbon rod surface area 42" sq. the Stainless steel cathode should be 21" sq. Salt is pure 100% salt dissolved into distilled water. I have been making saturated salt wrong. Today I learn saturated salt is, dissolve pure salt into 150°f water cool to 100°f pour into the 2 gallon brine tank. I find conflicting information about brine tank...
Engineers slash iridium use in electrolyzer catalyst by 80%, boosting path to affordable green hydrogen https://news.rice.edu/news/2025/engineers-slash-iridium-use-electrolyzer-catalyst-80-boosting-path-affordable-green Ruthenium is also fairly expensive (a year ago it was about $490/ troy oz, but has nearly doubled in price over the past year, now about $910/ troy oz). I tracks prices of Pt, Pd, Ru, Ir and Ru. Of the 5 metals, rhodium (Rh) is the most expensive. A year ago, Rh and Ir...
Back
Top