Largest Lattice Energy: NaCl, CaO, Li2O, or CaCl2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fk378
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Lattice
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining which ionic compound—NaCl, CaO, Li2O, or CaCl2—has the largest lattice energy. It emphasizes that smaller ionic sizes lead to larger lattice energies, with the size of ions increasing down the periodic table and decreasing across it. The conversation highlights the importance of considering ionic charges, noting that lattice energy is directly proportional to the product of the charges on the ions and inversely proportional to the sum of their ionic radii. Participants clarify that losing electrons results in a smaller atomic radius, which affects lattice energy calculations. Understanding these relationships is crucial for accurately comparing the lattice energies of the given compounds.
fk378
Messages
366
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Which one of the following ionic compounds has the largest lattice energy?

NaCl
CaO
Li2O
CaCl2



Homework Equations


Ionic/Atomic size
The smaller the ionic size, the larger the lattice energy.
Size increases from right to left, increases top to bottom of periodic table

The Attempt at a Solution


I've tried to compare the like ionic compounds, such as NaCl with CaCl2 but I can't seem to figure out which is bigger--Na+ or Ca2+

Am I approaching this incorrectly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well if your losing electrons then the atomic size would what?
 
Loss of electrons means smaller atomic radius. But Na and Ca don't have the same number of protons so isn't there another way to have to look at it?
 
Well the loss of electrons makes the radius smaller. You know Na is one of the bigger elements size wise right? And the size decreases as you go across the periodic table. The protons don't attract the valence electrons as much as the core electrons b/c of shielding. Do you get it now?
 
are you considering charges?

L.E. is directly proportional to product of charges on ions but inversely proportional to sum of ionic radii.

hope it helps
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top