This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed the following section because it's unsourced and contradicts my understanding of the inert pair effect:
"Inert pairs" are stereochemically active so it doesn't make sense to me that they'd simply remain within a perfectly spherical orbital. I'm no expert on this so I could be wrong but the section could do with some rewriting anyway. Blackthirteen 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this also be a part of Wikiproject: Chemistry? Or is there such a thing? RobertAustin 17:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I initially tried a simple expansion but I have ended up with a complete rewrite. I hope no-one is offended. The only questions I have now is why this topic was ever categorised as a relativistic effect--yes Rel effects matter for the heaviest members but looking at the IPs it is obvious that the inert pair effect is not due to higher energy s electrons. Sadly for us all the name is a misnomer--Sidgwick started it in 1927--great man that he was - but he got this one wrong! In terms of the evolution of chemistry the term inert pair effect is probably best viewed as a vestige left over from a palaeolithic past, a bit like the human appendix. sadly for student chemists the simple explanation of the effect is still being taught, so if anyone gets low marks for quoting this article I'm sorry! Axiosaurus ( talk) 18:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The article Ionization potential doesn't explain the terminology used in the chart. Is "1st" supposed to mean "first" or something else (I assumed "first" until I saw the rest of the chart)? Then what is "2st" -- "second"?? "3d" - "3rd","third" or an orbital? And at last, what does 2d + 3d, used several places in the article, mean at all?? "second plus third" ionization potential or some other specific chemical meaning? If it's just "first", "second", "third", use consistent terminology all the way through -- if not the words, then e.g. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or the same set without the superscripts. If it means something else, explain what it means (either in this article or Ionization potential), or write it out in full, please? - someone who thinks they do know what is meant? Thanks, — Isaac Dupree (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this effect confined strictly to groups 13-16? I think the difficulty of oxidation of Hg(0)has also been attributed to the inert pair effect. And also the stability of the auride ion Au(-1). Dirac66 ( talk) 20:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have started quite a discussion here. I think that my initial question has been answered, as you both agree that the effects in Au and Hg are relativistic but not identical with the "inert pair effect", and so do not belong in this article. I note that there is a good list in relativistic quantum chemistry, although without explanations.
It also seems clear from the above discussion that the exact list of phenomena which constitute the "inert pair effect" is quite ill-defined, and the theoretical explanations are far from conclusive. Perhaps this should be made clear early in the article.
I think though that this article should be retained in Wikipedia as an important historical concept, even though its inclusion in contemporary inorganic courses is diminishing. After all, Wikipedia even has an article on phlogiston! Dirac66 ( talk) 23:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed the following section because it's unsourced and contradicts my understanding of the inert pair effect:
"Inert pairs" are stereochemically active so it doesn't make sense to me that they'd simply remain within a perfectly spherical orbital. I'm no expert on this so I could be wrong but the section could do with some rewriting anyway. Blackthirteen 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this also be a part of Wikiproject: Chemistry? Or is there such a thing? RobertAustin 17:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I initially tried a simple expansion but I have ended up with a complete rewrite. I hope no-one is offended. The only questions I have now is why this topic was ever categorised as a relativistic effect--yes Rel effects matter for the heaviest members but looking at the IPs it is obvious that the inert pair effect is not due to higher energy s electrons. Sadly for us all the name is a misnomer--Sidgwick started it in 1927--great man that he was - but he got this one wrong! In terms of the evolution of chemistry the term inert pair effect is probably best viewed as a vestige left over from a palaeolithic past, a bit like the human appendix. sadly for student chemists the simple explanation of the effect is still being taught, so if anyone gets low marks for quoting this article I'm sorry! Axiosaurus ( talk) 18:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The article Ionization potential doesn't explain the terminology used in the chart. Is "1st" supposed to mean "first" or something else (I assumed "first" until I saw the rest of the chart)? Then what is "2st" -- "second"?? "3d" - "3rd","third" or an orbital? And at last, what does 2d + 3d, used several places in the article, mean at all?? "second plus third" ionization potential or some other specific chemical meaning? If it's just "first", "second", "third", use consistent terminology all the way through -- if not the words, then e.g. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or the same set without the superscripts. If it means something else, explain what it means (either in this article or Ionization potential), or write it out in full, please? - someone who thinks they do know what is meant? Thanks, — Isaac Dupree (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this effect confined strictly to groups 13-16? I think the difficulty of oxidation of Hg(0)has also been attributed to the inert pair effect. And also the stability of the auride ion Au(-1). Dirac66 ( talk) 20:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have started quite a discussion here. I think that my initial question has been answered, as you both agree that the effects in Au and Hg are relativistic but not identical with the "inert pair effect", and so do not belong in this article. I note that there is a good list in relativistic quantum chemistry, although without explanations.
It also seems clear from the above discussion that the exact list of phenomena which constitute the "inert pair effect" is quite ill-defined, and the theoretical explanations are far from conclusive. Perhaps this should be made clear early in the article.
I think though that this article should be retained in Wikipedia as an important historical concept, even though its inclusion in contemporary inorganic courses is diminishing. After all, Wikipedia even has an article on phlogiston! Dirac66 ( talk) 23:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)