Effective Charge on Valence Electrons of Sb

  • Thread starter Thread starter BugzBunny
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charge Electrons
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the effective charge (Zeff) experienced by the valence electrons of antimony (Sb) using Slater's rules. The user applies the formula Zeff = Z - 0.35a - 0.85b - c, with Z representing the nuclear charge of 51. They categorize the electron configuration and calculate Zeff as 6.3, but express uncertainty regarding the treatment of 4d electrons, questioning whether they should be included in factor b or c. The ambiguity in course notes regarding this classification is highlighted as a concern. Clarification on the correct interpretation of the electron configuration is sought for accurate calculation.
BugzBunny
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Given Slater's expression for effective charge below, determine the effective charge experienced by the valence electrons of Sb.

Homework Equations


Zeff = Z - 0.35a - 0.85b - c
Where
Z= the nuclear charge; a= the number of s and p electrons in the same shell; b= the number of s and p electrons in the shell one deeper; c= the remaining electrons

The Attempt at a Solution


I have grouped the electron configuration as such:
[1s2] [2s2 2p6] [3s2 3p6] [3d10] [4s2 4p6] [4d10] [5s2 5p3]

Zeff = 51 - 0.35(4) - 0.85(18) - 28 = 6.3

Is this the correct interpretation? My course notes and the problem's formulation are ambiguous so that the 4d electrons could be construed as a factor of b (× 0.85) or of c (× 1).

Thank you for your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top