Energy needed for an Ionic Bond

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Avardia
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bond Energy Ionic
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the energy transfers involved in the formation of ionic bonds, specifically focusing on the roles of ionization energy, electron affinity, and electrostatic attraction. Participants explore the complexities of these energy components and their implications for the stability of ionic solids.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the need for ionization energy to remove electrons and electron affinity to add them to another atom, questioning how the electrostatic attraction provides energy for this process.
  • Another participant suggests looking up the Born-Haber cycle, indicating that the electrostatic attraction corresponds to lattice energy, which can be significant.
  • A participant summarizes that the energy of forming an ionic solid is the sum of ionization energy, electron affinity, and electrostatic energy, noting that the first two terms yield a positive value, implying the necessity of the third term for ionic solid formation.
  • There is a discussion about the calculation of total binding energy in large ionic crystals, with one participant mentioning the complexity of summing infinite positive and negative terms, while another counters that the energies are finite and given per mole.
  • One participant emphasizes that in ionic reactions, energy must be exchanged between atoms to maintain energy balance, suggesting that sufficient energy is necessary for the reaction to occur.
  • There is a contention regarding the summation of energies, with participants debating whether the order of summation matters in the context of infinite series.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance of energy components in ionic bond formation and the implications of summing energies. There is no consensus on whether the order of summation affects the outcome, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the complexities of infinite series in this context.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for careful consideration of energy terms and their interactions, but the discussion does not resolve the assumptions regarding the nature of infinite series or the specifics of energy calculations in ionic bonding.

Avardia
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi, so I've been learning about the energy transfers for an ionic bond, but my understanding breaks down at what seems to be the last hurdle. I will write what I know so far.

So we need some energy that is listed as the ionisation energy to remove electrons from one atom then we need to put the removed electrons into another using some energy called the electron affinity for that element. So we now have two ions oppositely charged now bonded, but for this to occur in nature we need the new product to have a lower energy otherwise it wouldn't occur naturally but so far needs energy. From what I've read this energy is given in surplus from the electrostatic attraction between the two ions and it's where I fall down. How does the attraction of these two ions provide energy to ionise and add electrons?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Look up "Born-Haber cycle." This Wikipedia article has a good diagram for the example of lithium fluoride:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born–Haber_cycle

Edit: the "electrostatic attraction" you refer to corresponds to the lattice energy in the diagram. This lattice energy can be quite large.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Avardia
this, actually, is a very interesting question. In summary, the energy of forming an ionic solid is the algebraic sum of the three components: ionization energy of the donor atom (usually, alkali metal, that energy is positive), plus electron affinity of the acceptor atom (usually halogen, the affinity has to be taken as negative) plus electrostatic energy of the attraction between the positive and negative ions in the crystal. The thing is, the ionization energy plus the electron affinity ends up to be a positive value. So, without the third term, there should be no ionic solid. And there is a catch: in a large solid ionic crystal, there is approximately infinite number of atoms of each polarity and to get the total binding energy, you have to calculate and essentially an infinite sum of positive and negative terms ( attraction between negative and positive ions and repulsion between the ions of the same polarity). The thing is, depending on the order of summation, you get a different answer !.
 
Henryk said:
this, actually, is a very interesting question. In summary, the energy of forming an ionic solid is the algebraic sum of the three components: ionization energy of the donor atom (usually, alkali metal, that energy is positive), plus electron affinity of the acceptor atom (usually halogen, the affinity has to be taken as negative) plus electrostatic energy of the attraction between the positive and negative ions in the crystal. The thing is, the ionization energy plus the electron affinity ends up to be a positive value. So, without the third term, there should be no ionic solid. And there is a catch: in a large solid ionic crystal, there is approximately infinite number of atoms of each polarity and to get the total binding energy, you have to calculate and essentially an infinite sum of positive and negative terms ( attraction between negative and positive ions and repulsion between the ions of the same polarity). The thing is, depending on the order of summation, you get a different answer !.
No, the energies in question are generally given per mole of substance, and are very much finite quantities.
 
TeethWhitener said:
No, the energies in question are generally given per mole of substance, and are very much finite quantities
Yes, I know they are. What I said is that to get the correct number, you have to sum up negative and positive terms of the electrostatic energy in the correct sequence.
 
Henryk said:
Yes, I know they are. What I said is that to get the correct number, you have to sum up negative and positive terms of the electrostatic energy in the correct sequence.
No. Addition is commutative.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
The question of the chemical reactions can be simplified in the following way.

In the ionic reactions, (an atom gives electrons, and the other one accepts these electrons)

The atom that gives electrons also needs to give energy to have in balance of energy. And the atom that accepts electrons, also needs to receive energy to have also in balance of energy.

Then with the ionic reactions atoms interchange electrons and also interchange energy.

When they have enough energy, the reaction is produced. If they don’t get the enough energy, the reaction fails.

For that reason it is good the existence of energy around the chemical reaction, for this reaction can be successful.

In ionic reactions, atoms remain together for the charges’ attraction.
 
TeethWhitener said:
No. Addition is commutative
not necessarily if the series is infinite !
 
Henryk said:
not necessarily if the series is infinite !
There is no infinite series. Just a handful of energies per mole to be summed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K