# Is #Cd_2^+# diamagnetic or paramagnetic?

##### 1 Answer

Interesting proposition... You may mean

**CADMIUM(II) CATION**

**electron configuration** of

#1s^2 2s^2 2p^6 3s^2 3p^6 3d^10 4s^2 4p^6 \mathbf(4d^10 5s^2)# .

**Bolded** are the valence electrons and their orbitals.

The **valence atomic orbital energies** are

#5s: color(green)("-8.99 eV, or -867.4 kJ/mol")# #4d: color(green)("-17.84 eV, or -1721.3 kJ/mol")# .

Therefore, any ionizations removing the first two electrons will remove from the

#1s^2 2s^2 2p^6 3s^2 3p^6 3d^10 4s^2 4p^6 \mathbf(4d^10)# .

*There are no singly-occupied orbitals. Therefore, this cationic transition metal is diamagnetic.*

**CADMIUM DIATOMIC MOLECULE**

In the off chance you mean a *hypothetical*, ** gas-phase** diatomic cation... here is a

**molecular orbital diagram**I constructed for the

**homonuclear diatomic molecule**

Overall, the condensed **electron configuration** of the ** neutral molecule** would likely be:

#color(blue)([KK_sigma][KK_pi] (sigma_(4d_(z^2)))^2 (pi_(4d_(xz)))^2 (pi_(4d_(yz)))^2 (delta_(4d_(x^2-y^2)))^2 (delta_(4d_(xy)))^2 (sigma_(5s))^2 (delta_(4d_(xy))^"*")^2 (delta_(4d_(x^2-y^2))^"*")^2 (pi_(4d_(xz))^"*")^2 (pi_(4d_(yz))^"*")^2 (sigma_(4d_(z^2))^"*")^2 (sigma_(5s)^"*")^2)# where

#KK_sigma# stands in for the core#sigma# interactions and#KK_pi# stands in for the core#pi# interactions. Since these are not valence, they are not as relevant to describe the reactivity of#"Cd"# .

All electrons are paired, making the **neutral molecule** *diamagnetic*. Hence, **fully-occupied** orbital, is **paramagnetic**.

*CHALLENGE: Why does* *only exist hypothetically? Also, if you were to singly ionize* *, which orbital would you boot electrons out of first? Will that make the molecule more, or less stable? Why?*

**WHAT THE HECK IS A DELTA BOND?**

With **bond**, which is when orbitals overlap via **four lobes sidelong**, rather than two lobes sidelong (

**JUSTIFICATION OF ORBITAL ORDERING**

In order of **bond strength**,

Therefore, we expected the **less stabilized** and therefore **higher** in energy than the **higher** in energy than the ** opposite** order is expected for the

**antibonding**MOs.

However, notice that since the **highest** in energy to begin with, there is an extra *still* be **higher** in energy than either the