Theoretical Lattice Energy for MgF2

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the theoretical lattice energy for MgF2 using the Born-Landé equation, highlighting discrepancies between theoretical and experimental values. The user initially struggles with the ionic radius values and their application in the equation, questioning the addition of twice the fluorine radius. It is clarified that the nearest distance to the neighboring ion should be used instead, and the theoretical results are typically lower than experimental values due to the presence of covalency in ionic solids. The conversation also touches on the influence of Mg's +2 charge and its small size, which contribute to deviations from ideal ionic behavior. Overall, the theoretical calculations for MgF2 reveal complexities that affect accuracy compared to experimental data.
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
 
Back
Top