|
|
| Author |
Message |
sector001
Probably a bot.
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 1
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:24 pm Post subject: Crystal Field Theory |
 |
|
| Can anyone explain why, specifically in regards to Crystal Field Theory, why the lattice energies and Hydration enthalpies going across group 1 of the transition metals are not linear, except when considering only d0, d5, and d10 metals?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RobJim
Senior Member
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 320
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whoa. I have no idea. I'll try to look it up later.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RobJim
Senior Member
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 320
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I vaguely remember something about half filled, fully filled and empty subshells being more stable than otherwise. This might explain why a trend including d0, d5 and d10 metals might not include d6 or d3 metals. I haven't been able to locate that section of my textbook however.
I might be thinking of something entirely different - ionization energies or something...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GCT
Member
Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 12
Location: Georgia
|
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 10:27 pm Post subject: Re: Crystal Field Theory |
|
|
| sector001 wrote: |
| Can anyone explain why, specifically in regards to Crystal Field Theory, why the lattice energies and Hydration enthalpies going across group 1 of the transition metals are not linear, except when considering only d0, d5, and d10 metals? |
If your still searching for the answer
you'll need to consider the particular geometries of each complex of the transition metal with water e.g. how many ligands of water molecules are supported by each metal in a complex?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
