Cu 1+:
[Ar] 3d10 4s2
Cu 2+:
[Ar] 3d10 4s2 4p1
Although this is apparently contradictory to the usual rule, Cu 2+ really IS more stable than Cu 1+. This anomaly has been attributed to the Jahn-Teller effect which is the lengthening of the axial ligand bonds in a transition metal complex. I'm not sure what that means, but that's the answer.
Read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahn-Teller_Effect
2006-09-16 05:48:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by عبد الله (ドラゴン) 5
·
0⤊
50⤋
Copper 2 Electron Configuration
2016-12-26 16:02:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by suzette 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Copper Ion
2016-11-08 21:39:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
This Site Might Help You.
RE:
what is the electron configuration for ion copper 1 and 2?
what is the electron configuration for ion cu2+ and cu1+???why is cu2+ is more stable???
2015-08-18 09:37:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by Marget 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
The answer from عبد الله (ドラゴン) is wrong- that answer is for Cu1- and Cu2- !
As Cu is a transition metal with electron config [Ar] 4s1 3d10,
the ion of a transition metal loses its 4s electrons before 3d electrons;
so would be [Ar] 3d10 for Cu+
[Ar] 3d9 for Cu2+.
Ions with a bigger charge attract their outer electrons more strongly, so Cu2+ not only has a larger ionisation energy but is more stable.
(I don't know if it's also anything to do with nucleus size affecting stability- look it up)
2013-12-11 05:37:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 3
·
12⤊
0⤋
When you do electron configurations, you may start at the beginning: Co = 1s², 2s², ............ or at the previous inert gas (in brackets): Co = [Ar], 4s², 3d^7
2016-03-20 07:53:40
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
the below answer is wrong. its 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 3d9 for a copper(II) ion.
2013-10-01 18:29:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by Mike 1
·
1⤊
2⤋
Sorry but the previous answer was wrong. Just count the number of electrons.
The correct answer is:-
Elemental Cu [Ar] 3d10 4s1
Cu 1+ is [Ar] 3d10
Cu 2+ is [Ar] 3d9
I don't know why Cu2+ is more stable but I suspect it's something to do with the stability of complexes according to the ligand field theory.
2006-09-16 06:13:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by christopher N 4
·
33⤊
3⤋
Was wondering the same question
2016-08-14 04:43:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I haven't the foggiest
2006-09-22 22:34:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
6⤋
huh? umm.....i would have to say put a dangerous monster inside it.
2006-09-16 05:50:44
·
answer #11
·
answered by Jimmy F 1
·
1⤊
4⤋