why beta state of iron does not exist?
368979
iron as a pure material is natually in the alpha state because it is most energetically favorable.  With the addition of carbon to create steel many more phases are stable depending on temperature and carbon content.  beta steel does not exist because is is less stable at any given temp-composition state than at least one of the other possible phases.  See the attached link for a good iron-carbon phase diagram
1145844
Well, iron is a metal that doesn't contain carbon. Both are elements i.e. substances that can't be broken down into simpler substances by a chemical reaction. Most of the known elements in the universe are metals eg. aluminium, gold, copper, but the non-metals are more abundant eg. oxygen, hydogen. They are termed metals because of their structure and the way in which they bond to other elements. Maybe by metal you meant metal alloy. Steel is an alloy (mixture) of iron and carbon. I think all alloys of iron have some carbon in them. Don't know if this is what you meant but it was good trying to think about an answer.
860035
Do you mean what element? Iron is found at the center of a heme group. Or perhaps you are looking for the the porphyrin molecule, which is what surrounds the iron in heme.
599313
Refer to the electrohemical series (see source).  The answer depends on whether the conditions are such that iron is oxidized to Fe2+ or Fe3+.  In the case of iron metal being oxidized to Fe2+, the correct order is:\n\nMg, Zn, Fe, Sn, Pb
233305
Josh has the right idea, but there's one big flaw. It's not rust. Rust is hydrated iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3). The iron in oxygen-carring hemoglobin is at a +2 state, not a +3 state. The red is not caused by rust in the bloodstream.\n\nIf the iron in hemoglobin is oxidized to a +3 state, it turns the molecule into hemiglobin or methemoglobin, not hemoglobin. Neither of those two molecules with Fe+3 states can bind with oxygen.\n\nBasically, blood is red because of the oxygenated hemoglobin. Oxygenated hemoglobin is bright red, while blood without oxygen is a darker red. It's a myth that veins carry blue blood--it's an optical effect by the skin that makes it appear blue. If you get a blood test done, they'll pull out blood from a vein which is dark red, not blue.\n\nHope this helped.
156204
I don't believe that guy called her a moron for giving the right answer. Yes blood without oxygen is blue but it may appear green due to you looking at it through your skin. I'm sure you've seen someone with blue lines on their body. When blood becomes oxygenated...the Fe is pulled to the center of the heme ring. It's actually this conformational change that produces the red color. Not rust. Also to comment. The Fe is contained within the porphyrin ring but not in a flat structure. It is partially off center and is pulled more equally within the ring structure with the addition of oxygen. If you looked it up you'd know I wasn't making **** up. Although i do apologize for the blue comment. But we see blue because of the absorption of light at the surface of our skin. At least while the blood is stil in circulation. You need to be less critical. Yes all of them are red but to the naked eye under the skin they clearly appear blue. It's not total "bullocks" for someone to assume such. The intelligent should learn to be teachers not arrogant tactless shrews.
274511
in the universe hydrogen, on earth it is iron
612593
let the molecular mass of haemoglobin be 'x' and let us consider 1 molecule of it.\ngiven that 4% of x = 56 (atomic mass of iron)\nthis implies x=56 * 100/4 = 56 * 25 = 1400 atomic mass units (amu)\n\nmessage to the next answerer (chemmie) - i was only following the information given in the question.. but i think you are right,, i think haemoglobin has 0.4 % Fe and not 4%... but i had to answer the question according to given data :)
268504
I'm not sure anyone really "know" but there are many teltail clues.  Not all materials are magnetic except perhaps under very powerful magnetic fluxes (MRI's?) but all atoms of materials do have one or more electrons orbiting their nuclii.  We know that electrons can be directed by magnetic flux, perhaps in a TV picture tube, etc.  Therefore, the number and arrangements of electrons of the atoms differ and some create magnetic properties (dipoles or two different poles).  If an iron bar is heated to a high temperature all the iron atoms in the bar are permitted to spin around willy-nilly.  If the bar is then cooled while exposed to a strong magnetic flux (electromagnet?) all its dipoles will align uniformly with the external flux like the needles of compasses aligned with the earth's flux.  When cool, the magnet exhibits the combined strength of all the dipoles that were previously working against each other.  We know that atoms repel each other because of their electrons (and even their nuclii must be forced together to fuse because of protons) like basketballs with ballbearings at their centers, where the skins are made of rapidly orbitting electrons.  Whereas the basketballs would repel each other in any given positions, actual atoms in iron crystals repel directionally and they which can attract or repel a free electron.  The magnet has collectively directed their combined force.  If each dipole has a North and South pole, we would expect the entire magnet to also have a North and South pole, and for like poles to repel, just as in the individual dipoles.  Hope that helps a little.
1168125
Elements heavier than iron are produced in two ways:\n\nActually, they are ONLY produced in supernovae.  You need a huge excess of energy around because fusion of atoms into atoms heavier than iron is an endothermic reaction.  \n\nBurbridge, Burbridge, Fowler and Hoyle published the DEFINITIVE paper that illustrated why we observe elements in the proportions we do.  They used the then new understanding of nuclear chemistry (the paper published in 1957) and an estimate of energy and nucleon density in supernova explosions to reproduce the observed proportions of heavy elements.  \n\nBelow I link to a nice wiki article that describes the history of answering your question.
517835
you mean ferrum it is nothing but the latin name of iron.\n\nIron is the most abundant metal on Earth, and is believed to be the tenth most abundant element in the universe. Iron is also the second most abundant element by mass, making up 34% of the mass of the Earth; the concentration of iron in the various layers of the Earth ranges from high (how much is "high?") at the inner core to about 5% in the outer crust. It is possible the Earth's inner core consists of a single iron crystal, although it is more likely to be a mixture of iron and nickel. The large amount of iron in the Earth is thought to create its magnetic field (you mean to say this isn't known for sure?).\n\nIron is a metal extracted from iron ore, and is almost never found in the free elemental state. In order to obtain elemental iron, the impurities must be removed by chemical reduction. Iron is used in the production of steel, an alloy or solid solution of different metals, and some non-metals, particularly carbon.\n\nNuclei of iron have some of the highest binding energies per nucleon, surpassed only by the nickel isotope 62Ni. The universally most abundant of the highly stable nucleides is, however, 56Fe. This is formed by nuclear fusion in the stars. Although a further tiny energy gain could be extracted by synthesizing 62Ni, conditions in stars are not right for this process to be favoured. When a very large star contracts at the end of its life, internal pressure and temperature rise, allowing the star to produce progressively heavier elements, despite these being less stable than the elements around mass number 60, known as the "iron group". This leads to a supernova.\n\nSome cosmological models with an open universe predict that there will be a phase where as a result of slow fusion and fission reactions, everything will become iron.
1092759
I had the same problem when I learned about both of them. \nBut now think of it in a different way. You are assuming that the magnetic FORCE that magnets have on certain metals. But if you think about it carefully they don't create or destroy energy. \nIf you don't beleive me consider a piece of iron with only gravity working on. But its height is 0 so it has no Potential or Kinetic energy. But now let's say you bring in a magnet. Now naturally that will make the iron bar rise and stick to the magnet. Now a natural assumption would be that you just created potential energy because the height of the iron bar just increased. But now you have to consider the fact that magnet is still putting some force on the Iron bar. So no change in potential energy occured. No change in Kinetic energy occured once the bar stuck to it. and the Energy needed to bring the bar up could be accounted by the energy needed to bring iron bar in. This shows that there was no energy created.  \nI think that you are trying to overthink the problem. I think this should help good luck.
452881
False, because the binding energy increases steeply till iron and again reduces. So I would require enormous accelerators to transmute the element with Z>20.
588190
Iron is necessary to make hemoglobin, the substance that carries oxygen through your blood to all the cells in your body. Hemoglobin is what makes red blood cells red. With insufficient iron, and therefore not enough hemoglobin, red blood cells become small and pale and don't carry enough oxygen. You may have heard the phrase "tired blood." This really means blood that is low in iron and that can't carry enough oxygen to vital organs and muscles. "Tired blood" results in a tired body. \n\nIron is needed not only for blood, but also for brains. Neurotransmitters, the neurochemicals that carry messages from one nerve to another, require sufficient iron to function properly. A person with an iron deficiency may have a tired mind as well as a tired body.
865104
It has to be iron.  Without Fe, there'd be no steel, and no civilization as we know it.  You COULD make steel-like alloys with elements like Ni, but they'd be too costly for widespread use.
263675
I believe it is iron.  Not an expert though.
468469
that's a very challenging question, it is possible to produce strings of iron atoms a few nm across, but at that size they would obviously lose the properties of stainless steel, the resulting question would be, how small can wire be produced and still be considered to be of a certain alloy?  (this discussion refers to high precision lab production, not industrial production)