trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Aluminum has a lower first ionization energy than magnesium

the verdict
COMMON KNOWLEDGE
Legacy classification; evidence review pending
Recorded sources
no sources on either side

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that aluminum has a lower first ionization energy than magnesium?

Magnesium has a first ionization energy of approximately 738 kJ/mol, while aluminum has a lower first ionization energy of approximately 578 kJ/mol due to the loss of a 3p electron rather than a paired 3s electron.

Verdict: COMMON KNOWLEDGE · 0 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The analysis

The claim is a well-established fact of inorganic chemistry and standard periodic trends (aluminum's outer electron resides in a 3p orbital, which is slightly higher in energy and shielded better than magnesium's 3s valence electrons). None of the retrieved papers specifically address or measure first ionization energies of Mg and Al, as it is foundational textbook knowledge.

What does the evidence say?

The claim is a well-established fact of inorganic chemistry and standard periodic trends (aluminum's outer electron resides in a 3p orbital, which is slightly higher in energy and shielded better than magnesium's 3s valence electrons). None of the retrieved papers specifically address or measure first ionization energies of Mg and Al, as it is foundational textbook knowledge.

Receipt History
first checked04 Aug 2026
judged → COMMON KNOWLEDGE · 9504 Aug 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work