Packaging Particles: Hexagonal vs. Cubic vs. Body Centred

  • Thread starter Thread starter m0286
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particles
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the efficiency of different atomic packing arrangements: hexagonal closest packing (HCP), cubic closest packing (CCP), and body-centered cubic (BCC). Participants are exploring theoretical aspects, calculations related to packing density, and the implications of these structures in terms of volume and coordination numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about which packing arrangement is the least efficient, suggesting that hexagonal packing might be less efficient due to its larger volume despite holding the same number of atoms as cubic packing.
  • Another participant proposes calculating the packing density for HCP, CCP, and BCC structures by determining the volume of the unit cell and comparing it to the total volume of atoms in the unit cell.
  • Some participants are unclear about the questions posed in their assignment, particularly regarding the justification for the least efficient packing and the comparison of volumes between the more efficient forms.
  • There is a question about the coordination number for each type of packing, indicating uncertainty about how many neighbors each atom has in these arrangements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus on which packing arrangement is the least efficient, and there are multiple competing views regarding the calculations and interpretations of the packing efficiency.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention challenges with the geometry involved in calculating packing density, indicating that there may be unresolved mathematical steps or assumptions in their approaches.

Who May Find This Useful

Students studying crystallography, materials science, or solid-state physics may find this discussion relevant as it addresses fundamental concepts of atomic packing and efficiency.

m0286
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
**see attached file for image**
Sorry to post again so soon but I am having troubles with a new question...
With hexagonal closest packaging, cubic closest packaging and body centred... which of these three types of packaging has the least efficient arrangement of atoms, and why?

Though I do not know forsure, since my book has literally taught me NOTHING on this subject.. by looking atthe pictures and volumes (if they were put into a tight box) I would say hexagonal is the least effieient, since it holds 13 atoms, as does cubic packaging... however the volume of the hexagonal packaging would be larger than the cubic packaging. (assuming 1 unit per sphere- hexagonal 27, and cubic- 18.75 (since not all spehere take up a full space of the sphere due to the pattern. The body-centred only holds 12, and has a smaller volume of 12. I am really confused about this topic, quite possibly I am going about this ALL wrong.. If anyone could help you'd be AWESOME! THANKS A LOT!
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Draw the 3d close-packed structures of the 3 bravais lattices. Assume the radius of the atom (sphere) is r and calculate the volume of the unit cell in terms of r. Divide this volume by the total volume of the number of atoms in a unit cell ([itex]n \cdot (4/3)\pi r^3[/itex]). The inverse of the above ratio will be a number independent of r and is a number called the packing fraction or density and it tells you the effiiciency of close packing.

1 - (this number) = fraction of the volume that is unoccupied.

Calculate the packing density for the hexagonal, fcc and bcc structures and compare them. There's a little bit of tricky 3d geometry involved in the case of the hexagonal unit cell...but we'll cross that hurdle when we get to it.
 
Last edited:
doing the same experiment...i don't get it either:(
 
Are you actually doing an experiment, or are you trying to do a calculation? What exactly don't you get?
 
i don't get the questions they are asking:
- Which of these types of packing has the least efficient arrangement of atoms? Justify your answer

i think itz the body centered space lattice...buh i don't know why..coz maybe it seems to have more space

- How do the two more efficient forms of packing compare regarding volume?
totally confused on this one..

- State the co-ordination number of each of the type of paking, i.e., what is the number of neighbours touching each atom in an infinite array of space lattices?

don't know thsi one..
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
23K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
23K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
8K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K