Theoretical Lattice Energy for MgF2

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the theoretical lattice energy for magnesium fluoride (MgF2) using the Born-Landé equation. Participants explore the discrepancies between their calculated values and the experimental lattice enthalpy, discussing potential reasons for these differences.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in obtaining a theoretical lattice energy that aligns closely with the experimental value of -2962 kJ/mol, questioning the accuracy of their ionic radius summation.
  • Another participant suggests that the sum of ionic radii should reflect the nearest distance to the neighboring ion rather than simply adding the radii.
  • A participant calculates a value of 202 pm for the sum of ionic radii but still finds their result significantly different from the experimental value, prompting further inquiry into the correctness of their calculation.
  • One participant notes that the Born-Landé equation typically yields values that are lower than experimental results due to the presence of covalency in ionic crystals, even in those considered highly ionic like MgF2.
  • Another participant mentions Fajan's rules, indicating that the +2 charge of Mg contributes to a greater degree of covalency, which may affect the theoretical calculations.
  • There is a request for additional reasons to explain the discrepancies between theoretical and experimental values, indicating a need for further exploration of the topic.
  • A participant points out the advantages of using LaTeX for equations in forum discussions, suggesting a preference for clearer mathematical representation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the reasons for the discrepancies between theoretical and experimental lattice energies, with multiple competing views and hypotheses presented throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific ionic radii and constants, but the discussion highlights potential errors in measurement and the complexity of ionic character in solids, which may not be fully resolved.

pollycampos
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Calculate the theoretical lattice energy for MgF2 (Born-Landé equation)

Ionic radius Mg+2 (coordination number 6) = 86 pm
Ionic radius F- (coordination number 3) = 116 pm
Madelung constant = 2.408
n = 7

Homework Equations


b0dedee27d206a607aa2c0343ad9608a.png



The Attempt at a Solution


I'm having problems with this equation, because its result is very different from the experimental lattice enthalpy of MgF2 (-2962 kJ/mol), and it must be similar.
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4670/quiqui.jpg
What's wrong? Maybe the sum of ionic radius? (I added the Mg ionic radius plus 2 times F radius).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi pollycampos! :smile:

pollycampos said:
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4670/quiqui.jpg
What's wrong? Maybe the sum of ionic radius? (I added the Mg ionic radius plus 2 times F radius).

Why add twice the fluorine radius? You need the nearest distance to the neighboring ion. What would you get, then?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So I added 86 + 116 = 202, and the result is:
http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/1336/quinooo.jpg
It's still kind of far away from the experimental result (-2962 kJ/mol), no? Or is this result right?
Thank you in advance, Infinitum :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pollycampos said:
So I added 86 + 116 = 202, and the result is:
http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/1336/quinooo.jpg
It's still kind of far away from the experimental result (-2962 kJ/mol), no? Or is this result right?
Thank you in advance, Infinitum :biggrin:

Based on the given information, this answer looks correct. There might be errors in measuring the values that were given, and hence the discrepancy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you a lot, Infinitum :smile: The radius information was given by my teacher's book, so I guess it isn't wrong...:rolleyes: I thought the results should be very close, because MgF2 is a very ionic solid, no?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born–Landé_equation#Calculated_lattice_energies

The equation gives approximately equal values to the actual lattice energies. Usually less. This is because the ionic crystals, however 'ionic' you might think of them, do have a degree of covalency. You can never have a perfectly ionic solid.

Edit : In MgF2, Mg has a +2 charge, which by Fajan's rules creates a greater degree of covalency. It also is quite small, even smaller than sodium so that leads to a greater deviation from ionic behavior.
 
Oh yes, I think I should write that in my homework :-p Is there another reason for the experimental value be different from the theoretical? I have to write 2 reasons.
 
pollycampos said:
Oh yes, I think I should write that in my homework :-p Is there another reason for the experimental value be different from the theoretical? I have to write 2 reasons.

Ruh-roh! I wouldn't have explained it that way if I knew you had to write reasons :-p
 
  • #10
Please note it is much easier to use LaTeX built into forums for such equations than to input them as images.

E=-\frac{N_A M z^+ z^- e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r_0}(1-\frac 1 n)
 
  • #11
Thank you, I didn't know how to use the LaTeX :-p
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
19K
Replies
4
Views
14K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K