A Cubic and monolayer difference

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mohammad-gl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cubic Difference
Mohammad-gl
Messages
29
Reaction score
4
TL;DR Summary
Difference between cubic and monolayer
What is the difference for example between cubic boron phosphide and monolayer boron phosphide?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What are you using them for; hard cutting tool surface, as a semiconductor, or as a catalyst?

There are two forms;
Cubic (F-43m) BP and rhombohedral (R-3m) B12P2 boron phosphides are refractory (melting temperatures at ambient pressure are 2840 K [1] and 2390 K [2]) and low-compressible (300-K bulk moduli are 174 GPa [3] and 192 GPa [4]) wide bandgap semiconductors that have attracted considerable attention due to their superior physical properties.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02131914/document
 
  • Like
Likes Mohammad-gl
Baluncore said:
What are you using them for; hard cutting tool surface, as a semiconductor, or as a catalyst?

There are two forms;

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02131914/document
Thank you.
I want to know, for example, is the Gruneisen parameter of the cubic BP equal to monolayer BP?
 
Mohammad-gl said:
Thank you.
I want to know, for example, is the Gruneisen parameter of the cubic BP equal to monolayer BP?
I'm using it as a semiconductor.
 
No, monolayer boron phosphide adopts a hexagonal structure analogous to single layer boron nitride or graphene.
 
  • Like
Likes Mohammad-gl
Note also that "monolayer" does not imply an ordered structure; it typically just means that you have a surface covered with one layer of atoms or molecules. If you have a 2D material then this structure might indeed be ordered, but in general this is not the case because where the atoms/molecules end up strongly depends on the surface they are sitting on (plus lots of other factors such as temperature etc).
You frequently also see people use expressions such as "0.5 ML" which simply means that on average half the surface is covered.
 
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...

Similar threads

Back
Top