Скачать книгу

solids according to Eq. (2.1) with n=6 and m=1. (b) Resulting force, that is, -grad φ(r)."/>
for bonding in solids according to Eq. (2.1) with n equals 6 and m equals 1. (b) Resulting force, that is, minus grad phi left-parenthesis bold r right-parenthesis.

      Knowing the crystal structure for NaCl, we can also calculate the electrostatic energy gain for forming an entire crystal. Consider one Na ion at the center of the NaCl cube in Figure 1.5. It is surrounded by six Cl ions at a distance of a equals 0.28 nm, leading to an electrostatic energy gain of minus 6 e squared slash 4 normal pi epsilon 0 a. At a distance of a StartRoot 2 EndRoot, there are 12 other Na ions, giving rise to an energy increase of plus 12 e squared slash 4 normal pi epsilon 0 a StartRoot 2 EndRoot. Next, one finds eight Cl ions that again decrease the energy. Eventually, this series converges and the total energy gain is

      alpha is called the Madelung constant. It is specific for a given structure (for the calculation of alpha, see Problem 2). For calculating the electrostatic energy gain per mole, we have to multiply Eq. (2.2) by Avogadro's constant upper N Subscript normal upper A. We also have to multiply it by a factor of 2 to account for the fact that we have both Na and Cl ions in the solid. But at the same time, we have to divide it by 2 in order to avoid a double counting of bonds when we evaluate the electrostatic energy gain. So in the end, the energy gain per mole of NaCl is simply minus upper N Subscript normal upper A Baseline 1.748 e squared slash 4 normal pi epsilon 0 a. Note that alpha is larger than 1 so that the energy gain for forming a solid is higher than that for an isolated pair of ions. This is of course obvious since your salt shaker contains little crystals, not a molecular powder.

      It might seem that we can calculate the cohesive energy for ionic solids from purely classical physics, but this is not correct. Note that we have used the experimental interatomic distance for the calculation of the lattice energy. The calculation of this distance would involve quantum mechanics because it contains the repulsive part of the potential. In fact, the presence of the repulsive potential also causes the actual potential minimum for a given interatomic distance a to be slightly shallower than expected from the pure Coulomb potential (by about 10%). This can be seen in Figure 2.1 where the potential minimum lies above the Coulomb contribution to the potential at the equilibrium distance. In any event, ionic bonding is very strong. The cohesive energy per atom is on the order of several electron volts.

      Covalent bonding is based on the sharing of electrons between different atoms. The simplest case is that of the hydrogen molecule, which we will discuss quantitatively below. In solids, covalent bonding is often found for elements with a roughly half‐filled outer shell. A prominent example is carbon, which forms solids such as diamond, graphene, and graphite as well as complex molecules such as buckminsterfullerene normal upper C 60 or carbon nanotubes. The covalent bonds in diamond are constructed from linear combinations of the 2s orbital and three 2p orbitals. This results in four so‐called sp Superscript 3 orbitals that stick out in a tetrahedral configuration from the carbon atoms. In graphene and graphite, the 2s orbital is combined with only two 2p orbitals, giving three sp Superscript 2 orbitals, all in one plane and separated by angles of 12 0 Superscript ring, and one p orbital oriented perpendicular to this plane. This linear combination of orbitals already reveals an important characteristic of covalent bonding: It is highly directional. In addition to this, it is also very stable and the cohesive energies for covalently bonded solids are typically several electron volts per atom.

Скачать книгу