Why are ions that are already stable structures reducible and oxidizing?

The first is wrong, and the second is superficial, literary, non-essential.

If it's not naked, it's not a proton. H+ is the proton, which is oxidizing like an oxidizable metal to produce H2

Not all ions are oxidizing and reducing, for example, what is produced by f- in reduction (electron).

What is NA+ when it loses electrons? If you've studied orbital theory in inorganic college, you know that this is not possible.

But one thing is for sure, each substance has oxidizing properties without reduction, or both.

Don't tell me about rare oxygen, he is also reducing (he is not oxidizing) and can be oxidized by F2.

But both he and F- have stable structures and both cannot be restored.

For the questioner, it is not a question that can be said clearly in a few words, I will talk about it alone

The stable structure can be destroyed, because there is a very unstable (highly active object) in the environment, and he also wants to be stable, so he destroys your stability to complete his stability, of course, you want to make yourself stable. This depends on the overall stability performance before and after, for example: Cu2+ +mg = Mg2+ +Cu Cu2+ from stable ions to atoms, and the more unstable mg to stable magnesium ions.

From a general point of view, the stability of the system is increased, so the reaction can be carried out.

No, this stable structure can be destroyed, such as building blocks, and it won't fall if you don't move it, but give it.

He has an external factor, (like taking one out), and the bricks fall down, and the same goes for ions, and you take one of them.

Isn't the electron, the structure destroyed?

The stronger the reducibility of the metal element, the weaker the oxidation of the metal cation.

The stronger the oxidation of the cation corresponding to the metal element, the weaker the reduction of the metal element.

For example, zinc is more reducible than copper, and copper ions are more oxidizing than zinc ions.

From Zn + Cu2+ = Zn2+ +Cu, it can be obtained: the reducibility of Zn is stronger than that of Cu, and the oxidation of Cu2+ is stronger than that of Zn2+, so the stronger the reducibility of the element, the weaker the oxidation of the metal cation, and the stronger the metallicity of the corresponding metal elements.

Because the elemental reducibility is strong, it is easier to become a cation and exist stably. (If the cation is highly oxidizing, it is easy to become elemental, and the assumption is contradictory).

Hope, thank you.

The stronger the non-metallicity of the element, the easier it is for the non-metal atom to gain electrons, and the more difficult it is for its simple anion to lose electrons, so the weaker the reduction.

The non-metallic nature of an element includes many aspects: the ability of the atom of the element to obtain electron impulse, the stability of hydrides, the acidity of the most ** oxide hydrates, etc., It contains the ability of atoms to obtain electrons (oxidation), but it has a broader meaning than oxidation.

Is it true that the stronger the oxidation of non-metallic elements, the weaker the ionic reduction? -

Half pairs, according to the periodic law, it can be obtained: the stronger the non-metallic property, the stronger the oxidation of the elemental corresponding to the noisy group, and the weaker the reduction of the lowest price corresponding to it.

Note: It must be the lowest valence to be comparable. For example, the valency of H2S in the reaction of 2H2S + H2SO3 = 3S + 3H2O is increased and oxidized, which is a reducing agent, so the reducing properties: S2- >SO32-

Sulfur ions, iodine ions, bromine ions, chloride ions.

1. Non-metallic elements are a large group of elements, and among all the more than 100 kinds of chemical elements, non-metals account for 22 kinds.

In the periodic table, except for hydrogen, other non-metallic elements are ranked on the right and upper sides of the table, and belong to the p-zone.

3. Including hydrogen, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, arsenic, selenium, bromine, tellurium, iodine, astatine, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, radon.

The non-metallic elements occupy an important place in today's society.

Oxidation of metal ions: Ag+>Fe3+>Hg2+>Cu2+>H+(acid)>Pb2+>Sn2+>Fe2+>Zn2+>H+(water)>Al3+>Mg2+>Na+>Ca+>K+

Non-metal ion reduction: S2->SO32->I->Fe2+>Br->Cl-> non-most ** oxygenated acid heel "OH->oxygenated acid" F-

According to the order of the metal activity order table, the reducibility of the elemental is getting weaker and the oxidation of the ion is getting stronger and stronger, which is just the opposite.

There are no exceptions.

Reductive refers to the ability to lose electrons. Oxidation refers to the ability of electrons.

The more reducible the element, the volatile electrons become cations. Then it is difficult to get electrons after becoming a cation, so the oxidation is weak.

Can it be said that the stronger the reduction of the element, the stronger the cation reduction?..

A: No, you cannot. In fact, when an atom becomes an ion, it can be regarded as a stable structure, so for a cation is a stable structure formed by losing electrons, will it still lose electrons? So I can't talk about reductiveness.

It feels a bit abstract, I hope you can get it.