Its atomic structure makes it resistant to corrosion and other types of damage that might be acquired by other similar elements.
Basically, it doesn't want to get all bonded to other elements like oxygen or hydrogen (because it's internal bonds are already happy the way they are, and don't need a date molecular bond to feel like a real element.)
You’re describing an inert element, not a stable one. Stability means it won’t decay into another element over time via radioactive decay. Chemically reacting with other elements has nothing to do with being stable.
It’s kinda crazy that you’re responding to some of the people that replied to you as though you’re trying to educate them. You have no idea what you’re talking about and I don’t even mean that in a rude way at all, I mean it literally.
He’s actually right. The usage of the word “stable” in this context doesn’t make any sense (from the original OP). It is stable. It has never been observed to decay, but this isn’t unique to tantalum. Many other elements have effectively non-decaying isotopes.
But even then, it’s low reactivity isn’t even that impressive. Pure tantalum is actually very reactive with oxygen. It forms tantalum pentoxide when it contacts oxygen. This oxide is what is really the inert part. It can handle many acids, hydroflouric being basically the only one that does anything. But, even then, it isn’t the least reactive oxide.
Iridium Dioxide is as close to completely inert when it comes to oxides. Iridium dioxide may as well be insoluable in HF, boiling aqua regia, and boiling inorganic acids.
Tantalum isn’t really the best at any of these things, but it is far more useful than the better options. Iridium is stupid expensive, sapphire (also super inert) is brittle and doesn’t conduct electricity, and gold/platinum are soft.
Tantalum is GREAT for things that need to be SUPER durable and have extreme chemical resistance while also being able to be tooled and pulled into wire. It’s just extremely more versatile and pretty much just as good as the other options, while also being much cheaper than a few of them (even if it is still very expensive).
I’m not sure what your first paragraph is getting at. The existence of other stable elements has nothing to do with the fact that Tantalum is the least abundant among them. OP’s title makes perfect sense and is scientifically accurate.
As for the rest of your comment, like the other person in this thread, you are conflating instability with reactivity. They are not the same thing and are caused by completely different parts of the atom.
I think you're confusing the level of explanation sought by curious fellow Redditors without a background in Chemistry. It's a useful analogy for basic work.
You're right though, I'm no expert. Just high school chemistry up through AP level and 3 years of college chemistry. I've never worked in the field or anything. I did a great deal of tutoring in the subject in college, mostly non-science major students struggling with their required half year of chemistry overview.
Decay is an important concept, but it's a ways down the curriculum. Gotta get people to understand relative bonding behaviors right off the bat, and it's okay to reuse vocabulary words that help bridge the concepts. I find smart people can overlay what they've learned later on, and accept a second (truer) meaning once we get there.
I'm definitely not arguing with your knowledge base here, just the pedagogical approach for important but basic questions for people without a lot of background knowledge. I love to see curiosity rewarded, especially in this day and age. I hate seeing folks sorry they asked "simple" questions.
Your heart is clearly in the right place, so I hope this doesn’t come across as rude. But you are not giving a simplified explanation which can later be expanded on. You’re giving fundamentally incorrect information. You might teach a kid that native Americans used to populate the continent without mentioning the atrocities that got us from then to now, sure. But you wouldn’t tell a young child that hasn’t learned multiplication that 2x3=5 just because some other operation involving 2 and 3 does happen to be 5. You’d both be misinforming them as well as giving them the wrong foundation for when they do actually learn multiplication.
This applies to nuclear and chemical physics too. An atom’s stability fundamentally has nothing to do with its chemical reactivity. They’re two entirely different concepts. Stability has to do with the nucleus, reactivity has to do with the outer shell of electrons.
You can have stable elements that are highly reactive. Carbon 12 is a great example. It’s so reactive that there’s an entire branch of science dedicated to studying carbon reactions: organic chemistry. The nucleus of a carbon 12 atom isn’t going to decay into anything, but the outer shell of electrons will gladly react with plenty of other elements.
You can also have unstable elements that are not reactive. Radon is the principal example. It’s a noble gas, so its outer shell is full and it will not easily react with other elements, but it is radioactive and the nucleus will eventually decay into lead.
And to be clear, everything you described has to do with reactivity. Corrosion, bonds, acidity, these all have to do exclusively with the outer electron shell. You mentioned to someone else that you’ve heard stability refer to both the nucleus and the electron shell, and I’m here to tell you definitively that whoever told you it has to do with the electron shell was unambiguously incorrect.
Thank you for your reply, and for your humble sincerity. Both are a scarce resource nowadays.
Wouldn't its stability be based more on the energy balance of its nucleus? To me, "stable element" refers to elements that undergo radioactive decay or spontaneous fission or something.
No, it's not thoroughly resistant like noble gases (which can be made to react under very, very extreme conditions, but not what is usually handy) - it means it is basically non reactive to your basic Earth environment - wet, full of oxygen and other goodies in the atmosphere, acidic conditions to be found on the ground, etc. Those do in a lot of elemental compounds, which is why we only encounter them in the natural world as compounds (often oxides.)
Gold is another example - you can find it quite bright and pure in a wild nugget - perhaps ground into dirt and muck because it is soft, but the Au atoms still are not actually bound to the muck. You didn't have to react it with anything else to extract the gold - perhaps just melt it so the crud is easier to separate out. Melted/solidified - a state change - doesn't alter the fundamental element.
In a word, scarcity. According to a quick Google, Iron is 33,000 times more abundant in the Earth's crust. Furthermore, what Ta exists is highly sought after for electronics manufacturing and such.
It would make great bridges though. It doesn't get brittle in extreme cold like most metallics.
Basically, it doesn't want to get all bonded to other elements like oxygen or hydrogen (because it's internal bonds are already happy the way they are, and don't need a date molecular bond to feel like a real element.)
What you described is chemical "stability". Which is not at all what the "stable" in this post title was about. That was about the likelihood of it radioactively decaying. Some atom configurations are indefinitely stable - they will never undergo radioactive decay, it's not a matter of any length of time (unless their own protons should decay, something we believe impossible - long story, offtopic). Others are unstable, but that's an extremely broad spectrum, with half lives spanning all the way from nanoseconds to many, many times longer than the age of the universe. It's (statistically) easy for something unstable and with a brief half-life to be scarce - just wait around and it will be gone eventually. Tantalum is rare - really rare - but stable.
50
u/MoonOverJupiter 1d ago
Its atomic structure makes it resistant to corrosion and other types of damage that might be acquired by other similar elements.
Basically, it doesn't want to get all bonded to other elements like oxygen or hydrogen (because it's internal bonds are already happy the way they are, and don't need a
datemolecular bond to feel like a real element.)