Talk:Reactivity series

message: I think that this page would benefit from having one of the periodic tables on it. I've started one; the WIP is at Talk:Reactivity series/wip.  riking8 (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periodic Table w/ colors

message: in the simplified reactivity series, sodium should be below potassium as potassium have one more shell than sodium which is far from the nucleus and is readily able to be lost. 
Hellclanner (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potassium should be above Sodium 

message: I think this statement needs more clarification.
Metals with a greater total number of electrons tend to be more reactive as their outermost electrons (the ones which will be lost) exist further from the positive nucleus and therefore they are held less strongly.
For instance, Lead has more electrons than Lithium, yet Lithium is more reactive.  I suggest this phrasing.
Heavy metals tend to have their valence electrons in a shell further from the nucleus, so tend to give them up more easily because the nucleus imparts weaker attractive force on them.
Heavy metals like lead have four valence electrons to give away, while alkali metals such as lithium have only one. --Cheminterest (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reactivity 

message: There should be a reactivity number. The reactivity number range from 0-5 or 0-10. Cosmium 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reactivity level

message: Could we display both the UK and the US versions of the table? And which one is currently displayed?  --SuperCow 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK v. US Tables 

message: There were some revisions made to the table by an anonymous user which were then reverted by User:Vsmith. I believe that those revisions made by the anonymous user were more correct than what was previously listed. The version I am speaking of can be found here. . I'll have to look it up, I'm not positive about it. --SuperCow 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technicalities 

message: i believe the periodic table shown is the UK version, and i am using a UK book, but it says that Lithium (Li)is before (more reactive) than Calcium(Ca)- so which is right?80.240.197.170 10:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My table shows, that Lithium (Li) is more reactive than calcium (Ca). I looked up several in the internet too, they say the same. Emmy Lina (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calcium 

message: I am not a professional metals chemist either (actually a high school student), but I thought that it might be helpful to give an explanation of why there is an argument concerning whether K or Li should be at the top of the chart. Potassium metal is indeed more reactive than lithium metal, because potassium has a more loosely bound valence electron. In direct reactions, potassium reacts more violently than lithium. In aqueous solution, lithium is indeed the species with the most negative reduction potential, but this is due to the fact that the lithium ion has a very high charge density and this results in a more negative free energy of hydration. The reason, however, that potassium will burst into flame when it contacts water whereas lithium only fizzes is that potassium has a lower melting point (due to its loosely bound electron) and the heat of reaction will melt the potassium, which increases the rate of the reaction. This shows that things are often more complicated than we can anticipate in science. (As if to complicate things further, potassium is produced from KCl using sodium; sodium should be less reactive, but the greater volatility of K compared to Na drives the equilibrium Na + KCl -> NaCl + K to the right, in accordance with Le Châtelier's Principle.) As for whether K or Li should be at the top of the chart, the aqueous potentials are more or less useless for making a decision since adding Li to a solution of KCl will not displace K anyways since the Li will react with water instead, due to its higher reduction potential. For this reason I believe that K should remain on the top of the chart.
And as an aside, why is everyone so concerned with the K-Li argument and ignoring the Au-Pt one at the bottom of the table? After all, although gold has the higher reduction potential, platinum is much more difficult to oxidize than gold, and it dissolves more slowly in aqua regia. However, platinum(IV) oxide is more stable than gold(III) oxide (which decomposes at 150° C), suggesting that platinum metal's inertness is probably only due to kinetic factors...
Bbi5291 01:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The potassium-lithium issue explained. 

message: Just to let everyone know, the British Empire no longer exists. There are other countries besides the UK. A US version is needed on the page to add other points of view. Otherwise, this page is restrictive and only applies to countries that use the UK version of the activity series. Keep the UK version, though. 71.111.76.124 (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And how about a referece for this supposed U.S. version? A link to one single State where it is taught that lithium is more reactive than potassium, or that calcium is more reactive than sodium? Physchim62 (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to add US version 

message: There are definitions of "reaction", and should be included. 
The reason hydrogen is included is that hydrogen can be a cation or an anion. This is not true for carbon. 
From my knowledge, there is only 1 version of the activity series.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillz42 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions, Carbon, ect 

message: Who put that thing about transformers in there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Albatross7 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transformers? 

message: The version I remember from school (in the U.K., if that's relevant, given some of the comments above) had mercury above silver.  Any thoughts from an expert? -- NixonB (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd tend to keep mercury below silver. You need nitric acid to dissolve either of them, but for mercury it really has to be hot and concentrated nitric acid. Physchim62 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mercury vs. silver

message: I have noticed that there are a lot of metals (Beryllium, Barium, Radium, Gallium, Bismuth and a whole lot of transition metals to name just a few) that are not part of the Reactivity Series. I say we try to expand the Reactivity Series to include more elements. 86.157.96.38 (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More metals 

message: According to the article the reactivity series is to be read form the bottom to the top making metals like Au and even C more reactive than Group 1 metals shouldn't be the other way round? And I thought that Francium ( Though one of the rarer substances) is the most reactive as the Atomic radius is much bigger thus being able to lose the valence electorn? this article really confused me and my limited knowledge on chemistry.182.55.242.11 (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cs should be more reactive than Fr, due to relativistic effects. Double sharp (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't it be top to bottom 

message: I thought this would be a good idea to add, as I couldn't find any. WIP is at Talk:Reactivity series/wip. riking8 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periodic Table w/ colors 

message: I'm a student in China. This is the order on textbook : http://www.pep.com.cn/czhx/jshzhx/tbxzy/dzkb/9xiakb/201008/t20100825_736383.htm
--4hao (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the order is different from the textbook？ 

message: Shouldn't Mg be coloured red? It does react with water, as stated in its article (and actually "common knowledge" IMO).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnesium 

message: Can someone please add the platinum group metals to the series? - AwesoMan3000 (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the Os and Pd positions questionable without reliable sources. For one, Os is notably unhappy to form simple cations in aqueous solution, and assuredly, +1 is not among its major oxidation states. Double sharp (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

text: P.S. "W3+" ion in article is basically a fantasy. Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platinum group 

message: F⁻>SO²⁻>NO⁻>Cl⁻>O²⁻=Br⁻>I⁻>S⁻>N⁻>P⁻>OH⁻
Shubhrajit Sadhukhan (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative reactivity series