1cudnt get u.....sry....
can u plz elaborate?
We usually say that s subshell is closer to the nucleus than p, d, f etc of the same shell, isn't it? But according to the plots given in the following graph, it shows that 3d is closest to the nucleus, then 3p and then 3s. Same with 2s, 2p. Also, is there anything like "the closer a subshell is to the nucleus, the lesser energy it will have"??? So, it means that 3d should have the lowest energy..(among subshells in 3rd shell)...? Please tell if i'm going wrong somewhere...
(Source: Concise inorganic chemistry, JD Lee)
-
UP 0 DOWN 0 0 8
8 Answers
49the thing u hav overlooked is the shape which also plays animportant role
1looking at the graphs , I find that 3d is at a greater distance !!!!!!!! can you explain why 3d is at a shorter distance ??
1these are readial distribution graph not energy/radius graph . we can see that a 3d subshell begins after distance from the nucleus thus is farther away from the nuclues than 3p or 3s .
the closer a subshell is to the nucleus the more it will be binded to the nucleus thus has lower energy.
11Please correct me if wrong ,
But 4∩ R2 r2 is the probability of the electron being at a distance r frm the nucleus, and not the Energy.
These diagrams shows that the probability is zero at the nucleus (As r = 0). The most probable distance inc as the principall quantum no. inc, and dec slightly as the subsiduary quantum no. inc.
1@soumya and eureka..
i mean the peak of the graphs show the most probable position, right?? the peak for 3d is a little less than 5 angstroms....3p and 3s are more than 5 angstroms...
1i think tushar is also saying what i'm trying to explain...
do you get my doubt now???