Chemistry Problem Set 2 Solutions

1.
a) v = c
14
9
8
10 38 . 4
10 685
10 00 . 3
= =

v Hz
19 14 34
10 90 . 2 ) 10 38 . 4 )( 10 626 . 6 (

= = = v h E J
b) mm K T = 9 . 2
max

9 . 2 ) )( 10 685 (
6
=

T
K T 4234 =

2.
a)
10
6 31
34
10 02 . 2
) 10 6 . 3 )( 10 109 . 9 (
10 626 . 6

=


= =
mv
h
m
b) v h E =
17 34 16
10 65 . 1 ) 10 626 . 6 )( 10 50 . 2 (

= J
c)
metal e e photon
v m E u + =
2
2
1

) 10 65 . 1 ( ) 10 6 . 3 )( 10 109 . 9 (
2
1
17 2 6 31
+ =
photon
E
17
10 24 . 2

=
photon
E
v h E =
16
10 38 . 3 = v Hz
v = c
9
10 87 . 8

= m
d) x-ray
e) J
eV
J
eV
19
19
10 00 . 7
1
10 602 . 1
37 . 4

v h E =
15
10 06 . 1 = v Hz
v = c
7
10 84 . 2

= m
UV rays
3.
a) )
1 1
(
2
2
2
1
n n
R = v
Note: There are many forms of the Rydberg equation with different
values for the constant R. As you can see above, I am using the one I
taught you, the one solving for frequency rather than energy or
wavelength.
)
16
1
4
1
)( 10 29 . 3 (
15
= Hz v
Hz
14
10 17 . 6 = v
v = c
m
7
10 86 . 4

=
b) Balmer series; visible
c) m
7
10 22 . 1


Note: If your answer was 4 times the answer in part a, note that the
energy would scale with the square of Z. This means that the change in
energy would scale by 4, but because energy is inversely related to
wavelength, the wavelength would decrease by a factor of 4.
d) Im assuming for this question that it refers to the answer in part c
p
h
=
s
m kg
p

=
27
10 45 . 5
s
m kg
p

= A
28
10 72 . 2
t 4
h
x p > A A
m x
7
10 94 . 1

> A
4.
a) 5
b) 5s, 5p, 5d, 5f, 5g
c) 25
5.
a) False, 1s orbital penetrates more to the nucleus and shields nuclear
charge from 2s orbital.
b) False, although the effective nuclear charges are similar because the
same 1s orbital shields charge from both of them, the effective nuclear
charge for a 2s orbital will be slightly higher because it has a lower
orbital angular momentum than a 2p orbital and as a result, electron
density will sit closer to the nucleus.
c) False, because of the reasons stated in answer (b), electron density
sits closer to the nucleus and the increased positive charge stabilizes
the electrons in the 2s orbital and lowers the energy.
d) True.
e) False, Pauli Exclusion Principle.
6. (a) is invalid because l is 2 and n is 2, which is forbidden because l
can only go up to n-1. (b) is fine. (c) is invalid because
l
m has a value of
5, when the value of l is 4. This is forbidden because
l
m must sit
between +l and -l. (d)This is forbidden because electrons have half-
integer spins and this set of quantum numbers indicates that the spin of
the electron is 0.
7. This was given as a practice to know you know how to write electron
configurations. You can clearly see all the answers on any periodic
table, so I wont spend my time copying that. Also, from now on, you
can use noble gas configurations whenever you would like.
8. (a) and (c) experience the inert pair effect. Antimony has 3+ and 5+
cations, with 3+ being slightly more stable. Thallium has 1+ and 3+ with
1+ being much more stable.
9.
a) barium, magnesium, beryllium
b) chlorine, sulfur, silicon
c) oxygen, carbon, nitrogen
d) antimony, bismuth, phosphorus
As this problem illustrates, trends in electron affinities are really, really,
really odd. You should rely more on the other trends.
10.
a) These two are examples of half-filled orbital stability and filled orbital
stability, respectively. To understand half-filled orbital stability and
filled orbital stability, you must understand that the energy to add one
more electron to them disrupts the parallelism in the orbitals. You must
examine this with relative energies. By itself, having half-filled orbitals
and filled orbitals may not seem like a stabilizing effect, but you must
understand the stability relative to states above and below it.
b) The jump in energy there would be too high. When we go, for
example, from 4s to 3d to get half-filled or filled orbital stability, 3d
electrons are relatively close to the energy of 4s orbitals because of the
low penetration of 3d and resulting energy elevation. Thus, the energy
needed to make the transition is made up by the increased stability.
With the scenario in the problem, the energy difference would be too
large for it to be energetically worth it.