Why are the least reactive metals rarer?

[luiz]

I was wondering why the metals get rarer the least reactive they are, and I coulnd't think of any satisfactory answer. I'm sure there is a simple answer and I certainly studied that at some point, but now I'm clueless.

Anyone good in chemistry here?

 

[Yom]

Perfection can probably answer that for you. I'm not sure that the least reactive metals are the rarest, necessarily, though.

 

[Kal'thzar]

Edit: Wow so totallly realised at the last moment that helium is NOT a metal....

Now there was a list of chemical reactivity somewhere in my notes at one point, but i do know that copper and iron are pretty unreactive metals, although tis also true that silver and gold are even more unreactive, but then they are also inert which might have something to do with it. I think platinum is also inert too...

EDIT 2:
When i say inert i mean, not reactive.

Inert is again the wrong word

I'm on a roll guys.

EDIT 3:



Not not reactive/unreactive....rather native, as in found in its original state.

 

[Aegis]

Thanks, I needed that laugh, Kal'thzar

 

[Kal'thzar]

Aegis read the above post again.

 

[Perfection]

Simple, they're bigger. In general, bigger elements are rarer (because they're harder to produce). So the big unreactive ones like Platinum Gold and Mercury are rarer then the more reactive metals like iron and aluminum.

 

[luiz]

Simple, they're bigger. In general, bigger elements are rarer (because they're harder to produce). So the big unreactive ones like Platinum Gold and Mercury are rarer then the more reactive metals like iron and aluminum.

I thought of that, but lead is heavier then gold and still much more common (1 mol of lead=207g, 1 mol of gold=197g). So there must be another explanation.

 

[Perfection]

I thought of that, but lead is heavier then gold and still much more common (1 mol of lead=207g, 1 mol of gold=197g). So there must be another explanation.

Lead is the end of the nuclear decay chain for a lot of radioactive elements, so it's comparitively more common then the other heavy elements

 

[Renata]

It's not really that simple, either -- something like francium or radium is both very rare and very reactive.

Renata

 

[Perfection]

It's not really that simple, either -- something like francium or radium is both very rare and very reactive.

Renata

You're acting like we're saying that the rarest elements are the most unreactive, we are not. We're only saying that the most unreactive are comparitively rare.

Though really Francium and Radium aren't good examples because they're radioactive.

 

[Cuivienen]

The least reactive elements are Platinum and Gold, both of which can only be dissoved by aqua regia (a nitric acid and hydrochloric acid solution). Palladium and Silver are also very unreactive, but less so than Platinum and Gold.

In truth, these elements are no more rare than most other elements around them. Osmium, Iridium, Rhenium, Thallium... None of those elements appear very often, either.

 

[BasketCase]

Random theory that popped into my head:

A common method for separating out an element you're trying to refine is to mix it with something that it likes to bond with. Soap works because it likes to bond with both oil and water. One way to get gold is to mix a cyanide solution with the ore; the gold atoms bond to the cyanide, so when you filter the cyanide out, the gold comes with it.

An element that's less reactive is harder to talk to, so to speak. If it's hard to refine, it's going to appear more rare because there's less of it visible.

 

[luiz]

Random theory that popped into my head:

A common method for separating out an element you're trying to refine is to mix it with something that it likes to bond with. Soap works because it likes to bond with both oil and water. One way to get gold is to mix a cyanide solution with the ore; the gold atoms bond to the cyanide, so when you filter the cyanide out, the gold comes with it.

An element that's less reactive is harder to talk to, so to speak. If it's hard to refine, it's going to appear more rare because there's less of it visible.

When we talk about how much of an element there is we're not only talking about it's pure form.

 

[BasketCase]

No problem there--an element that doesn't like to react with others is more likely to be seen in pure form.

(Wow, I never thought an argument could POSSIBLY spring up in THIS thread!)

 

[Shaihulud]

The composition of the metallic elements on earth was formed during the creation of the solar system. iron being the most common because it is the end product of a fusion process. As was mentioned most of the heavier metals are pretty rare(except for lead). Maybe non reactive metals are percieved as rare because of their low reactivity? Ancient Civ can simply dig them out and beat them into jewellery, since they ahave low reactivity, you can even hoard large amount of that stuff without fear that it will degrade.

 

[Perfection]

Non-reactive metals are on average significantly rarer then most elements

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

It's not an illusory correspondence

 

[The Last Conformist]

The least reactive elements are Platinum and Gold, both of which can only be dissoved by aqua regia (a nitric acid and hydrochloric acid solution). Palladium and Silver are also very unreactive, but less so than Platinum and Gold.

Actually, gold can be dissolved in selenic acid.

 

[Perfection]

Actually, gold can be dissolved in selenic acid.

I've never heard of such reaction. Is it without the presence of a chloride? And by what equation does it react?

 

[The Last Conformist]

I've never heard of such reaction. Is it without the presence of a chloride? And by what equation does it react?

I don't have the details at hand. Try googling it.

 

[plarq]

nope,I guess Selenic Acid cannot dissolve gold,not even Silver.It's inferior than sulfur acid or hydrochloride.