Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Madelung constant of NaCl

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Okay, so the lattice of solid NaCl has the form of a cube, and thus when you start summing the interactions you get -\frac{z_-z_+e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0r_0}(6+...  ) where r_0 is the distance Na-Cl from the central Na+ ion to the six closest Cl- ions.

    The second term in the expansion is -\frac{12}{\sqrt{2}} third \frac{8}{\sqrt{3}} fourth -\frac{6}{\sqrt{2}} fifth \frac{8\times3}{\sqrt{5}} and I could calculate some more, but they get more and more geometrically tedious.

    I know that it converges to 1.74... but want to firstly set up the general term for the series, and then prove that it converges (comparison test or similar depending on how the series looks). I've had a look at the wiki article but it didn't seem to help me much, or at least not in a way I understood.


    edit: I've seen the series they give on wikipedia, (\displaystyle\sum_{i,j,k=-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{i+j+k}}{\sqrt{i^2+j^2+k^2}}) but don't directly see where this comes from. And why are they summing from -infty to +infty? That would mean we are looking at an infinitely large structure of ions? Also, wouldn't it be equally possible to just sum from 0 to infinity and multiply the result by 2, because cubes are symmetric...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm afraid I don't know the answer to this, and at the moment I haven't got the time to look into it properly (finals are fast approaching!), but I've looked up some articles and a couple look promising - so if you let me know your email address I could send them to you and you can have a look at them yourself? (I don't want to post them here because they're copyrighted and also one of them was stamped with my IP address on downloading. Or are you on a university network and can download them yourself?)

    But apparently the message to take home is that the 'normal' way that we use to 'show' what the series should converge to, the first few terms of which you've written above, doesn't actually converge! (I definitely remember writing 'it can be shown that this series converges' in an exam ... oh, the beauty of proof by omission!)
    So this is definitely interesting, and I'll look into it more properly in the summer. Who knew that basically *all* the textbooks on this blatantly lie? :p:
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'll PM you my email.


    Basically, I was revising for something unrelated, but my book ("Why chemical reactions happen") mentioned this a bit, and I looked at it because I found it interesting.


    edit: Thanks a lot for taking your time to look at this, I'm really grateful! And yes, proof by omission is a good one Especially when you can't remember the proof.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 9, 2008
New on TSR

Strictly iPlayer

Will you still watch if some BBC programmes go online only?

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.