Talk:Lattice energy

Lattice energy

Lattice Energy is the amount of energy required to separate one mole of solid ionic compound into its gaseous ions

How can i get this article in Bengali? Mr. Loser (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

diamond crystal lattice picture

This is not a picture of the diamond crystal lattice- diamond is pure carbon i.e only one type of atom- and each atom is coordinated by 4 others. Also the article restricts itself to ionic solids - so why show a picture of covalent solid? --Axiosaurus (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so I've replaced the figure with a NaCl lattice, which is one of the examples given in the article. --Itub (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

be careful

the lattice energy is not equal to the lattice enthalpy which links here: It is: $\Delta _{G}U=\Delta _{G}H-p\Delta V_{m}$ , Where $\Delta _{G}U$ is the molar lattice energy and $\Delta _{G}H$ the molar lattice enthalpy and $\Delta V_{m}$ the change of the volume per mol. source: [1]--Biggerj1 (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

changed enthalpy to energy of formation according to your suggestion in English Wikipedia

and also incororporated other material from German Wikipedia article, extending to molecular and covalent crystals, not just ionic. Enschuldigen Sie mir, meine Deutsch ist nicht so gut als Ihre Englisch.72.89.126.125 08:26, 3. Jan. 2014 (CET)

The reason why I didn't change en:lattice energy is, that it most probably mixes lattice energy and lattice enthalpy since lattice enthalpy links to the article. It requires a bit work to resolve the mixing. For example the presented case of Na^+(g)+Cl^-(g) -> NaCl(s) is most probably related to the lattice enthalpy (you may follow its calculation here http://www.docbrown.info/page07/delta2Hb.htm ) and not the lattice energy. In this fashion all the other quantities should be checked (simply search for kJ/mol and you see all the critical places).--biggerj1 (Diskussion) 12:11, 3. Jan. 2014 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggerj1 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you may also check whether a redirect of lattice enthalpy to lattice energy is sensible since it is not the same object. At least a clear distinction should be made.--Biggerj1 (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lattice energy for metallic solids

What data are there in case of metal lattice?--188.26.22.131 (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problems to address

I see a few problems with this page, which I have just stumbled upon, and which I'll address in the near future. Someone's put a note that it may be too technical for some users to understand and that its tone needs to be more encyclopedic, which I'll try to address. There are other issues though. At one point in the article the lattice energy is defined so that it's positive, whereas it's defined as a negative quantity elsewhere. This presumably arose from multiple editors chiming in combined with the fact that both sign conventions are pretty persistent in the literature. When I edit it I'll address this issue. AFAIK neither IUPAC or the American Chemical Society have a specific recommendation on this (!). If anyone else has ideas for improving the page before I start editing, I'm all ears. KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to keep it light. Dont punish readers with extreme rigor. Its an area that can be quite mathematical, but, IMHO, the key to to communicate the concepts and their consequences. By consequences, I mean real world effects not some DFT prediction. The other usual advice applies: WP:TERTIARY (rely on textbooks, its a fully established topic), studiously avoid COI. In terms of IUPAC, RSC, ACS, etc.: editors are mindful of those bodies, but we dont worry about violating their advice.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice, thanks! KeeYou Flib (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re sign of lattice energy: It was only defined as positive in the very first sentence, which I have now rewritten to agree with the rest of the article.

Also there is a paragraph explaining that "some textbooks ..." use the opposite sign. This is necessary in an encyclopedia which should mention the existence of different viewpoints. Dirac66 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice - sorry I didn't get around to this, life got in the way. KeeYou Flib (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've finished a pretty major retooling. Hope that this improved things substantially. I still see more to do, but at least the article now has no major technical errors and is a bit simpler. KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]