Talk:Ligand field theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so their σ-symmetrical orbitals form bonding orbitals with the dz2 and dx2-y2 orbitals.

Is the hyphen in the subscript above supposed to be a minus sign? If so, it should say

dx2y2

since the stubby little hyphen is hard to see. Michael Hardy 18:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this a little late (I'm not a faithful pagewatcher I must admit) but you are right. I changed the hyphen into a minus sign and will continue to use the minus sign if I get to expansion of this article. Thanks!

--tijmz 4 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)


Can I just say that this is a really good explanation of ligand field theory given that there are no diagrams! Well done, whoever wrote most of it (although the last section isn't quite so good - I might have a crack at that later).--Brichcja 18:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] LFSE

I feel the last section, on LFSE, is very confusing. Furthermore, I think it's wrong. What is described here is Crystal Field Stabilisation Energy (CFSE), because it is assuming that the Barycentre rule applies: (i.e. that the t2g go down by 2/5 Δo and the eg go up by 3/5 Δo). If you look at the MO diagram, this plainly isn't true beacuse the t2g are often non-bonding (they don't go down at all), and if they do go down, the amount is not related to how far the eg have gone up, it's related to the amount of π-bonding.

Any thoughts?

Chris 21:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You are probably correct and should proceed with editing as you seem to be inclined. In general, much confusion exists between LF and CF theories and sometimes I feel we should just drop CFT because it is more primitive than LFT and it simply confuses more than it clarifies. Part of the problem may be that texts propagate the concept of LFSE being related to multiples of Δo, as you mention. If you had time, it might be worth checking a modern inorganic text. Regarding one details of your comments, t2g can be pushed up with pi-donor ligands, the case of h.s. [CoF6]3- being the famous example.--Smokefoot 02:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I removed the LFSE section for the reasons given above. I wrote a section on CFSE and put it on the crystal field theory page to replace it. Chris 19:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spectrochemical series

I added some stuff about the spectrochemical series, because LFT explains it and the spectrochemical series is empirical evidence for LFT. There is a page for the spectrochemical series, but it doesn't really say anything other than give the same list of ligands. There's no explanation there for it, and I would be tempted to blank it and turn it into a redirect to here. Equally, there's a bit on the spectrochemical series on the CFT page, which I am going to remove. It's got nothing to doo with CFT, and everything to do with LFT.... Chris 22:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)