[x_sunjay]

I believe Francium is the most reactive atom on the periodic table as mentioned by someone already. If you look at the reactivity series of metals, generally the reaction decreases as you go towards the right of the table towards the semimetals and the gases, and reactivity increases as you go downwards towards the heavier metals. So, Francium is a group one metal and at the very bottom, theoretical1y, it would be the most reactive. Its so reactive and dangerous that i think schools don't stock it.

[lightarrow]

I believe Francium is the most reactive atom on the periodic table as mentioned by someone already. If you look at the reactivity series of metals, generally the reaction decreases as you go towards the right of the table towards the semimetals and the gases, and reactivity increases as you go downwards towards the heavier metals. So, Francium is a group one metal and at the very bottom, theoretical1y, it would be the most reactive. Its so reactive and dangerous that i think schools don't stock it.

Not at all. The most reactive element is fluorine; think that it reacts explosively with hydrogen still at -100°C!

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

It is the most reactive and most electronegative of all the elements..

[lyner]

Which would be the more reactive, francium or fluorine? They are diagonally opposite each other in the Periodic table (ignoring the noble gases)  so , between themselves, are they not equally reactive? 

[lightarrow]

Which would be the more reactive, francium or fluorine? They are diagonally opposite each other in the Periodic table (ignoring the noble gases)  so , between themselves, are they not equally reactive? 

It's a different kind of reactivity. Metals reacts usually loosing electrons, non-metals as fluorine taking electrons.

[lyner]

You're going to bring potentials into this, soon, aren't you, Lightarrow?

[lightarrow]

You're going to bring potentials into this, soon, aren't you, Lightarrow?

Why?

[lyner]

1. 'cos it's the potential between atoms that makes them get together, vero?
2. 'cos you seem to like 'em.

[lightarrow]

1. 'cos it's the potential between atoms that makes them get together, vero?

You should specify "makes them get together"; if you mean the binding energy in a ionic or covalent bond, it's not so simple because it also depends on  the charge, radius and reciprocal position of the ions, in the first case, and...too many things in the second  [].
Between Fluorine and chlorine, for example, the greater reactivity of F with hydrogen or some metals is essentially due to the fact fluorine atom is smaller than chlorine atom.

Another example is Al₂O₃: it's extremely stable, that is, very high (negative) ΔH_formation, even if there are a lot of other metals with higher (in absolute value) reduction potential than Al: Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, U, Ce.
I don't know the exact reason of this, it's probably also due to the fact AL³⁺ ion is small, high charge and with a dimension that makes it pack very well with oxygen ions; the difficulty of this interpretation is also due to the fact that the bond is not exactly ionic... []

Al reacts (at the proper temperature) with oxygen in a spectacular way; it's used for fireworks and some explosives indeed.

2. 'cos you seem to like 'em.

[]