## 3 Results (A Comparison of the Theoretical and Experimental Results)
In this paper, we studied, under various experimental conditions, the spectrum of thermally stimulated depolarization current density (TSDC) for crystals of chemically pure chalcanthite, classified by the type and properties of their crystal structure as a crystalline hydrate, which is classified by [PERSON] as a complex compound [1]. With the experimental measuring device described in [68], we measured the main spectrum (Graph 1 in Figure 4) and a number of additional spectra (Graphs 2-5 in Figure 4), from which it was found that, in chalcanthite, as in samples of laminated silicates (philogpit \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Energy Activation U\({}_{\text{o}}\), eV**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Balanced Concentration \(n_{\text{o}}\), 10\({}^{16}\) m\({}^{-3}\)**} \\ \cline{3-8} \cline{6-8}
**Temperature of Experimental Maximum of TSDC** & **Type of Relaxer & \begin{tabular}{c} **Theoretical (Calculated Based on** \\ **Equation (24)**) \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Experimental** \\ **Equation (24)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Theoretical (Calculated Based on** \\ **Equation (24)**) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \cline{3-8}
**Temperature of Experimental Maximum of TSDC** & **Type of Relaxer & \begin{tabular}{c} **Experimental** \\ **(Calculation in** \\ **This Paper)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Without** \\ **Considering the** \\ **Quantum** \\ **Tunneling** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Considering the** \\ **Quanti** \\ **Tunneling** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Considering the** \\ **Quasi-Empirical** \\ **Methods** [1,4]** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Without** \\ **Considering the** \\ **Quanti** \\ **Tunneling** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
94 & \(\text{HSO}_{\text{i}}^{\text{-}}\) & \(0.07\pm 0.01\) & \(0.16\) & \(0.08\) & \(1.8\) & \(1.7\) & \(1.79\) \\ \hline
138 & \(\text{H}_{\text{j}}\text{O}^{\text{+}}\) & \(0.11\pm 0.01\) & \(0.13\) & \(0.12\) & \(1.5\) & \(1.6\) & \(1.52\) \\ \hline  &
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\text{H}_{\text{j}}\text{O}\) water molecules of crystallization \\ **(structural water)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(0.23\pm 0.02\) & \(0.26\) & \(0.25\) & \(190\) & \(185\) & \(189\) \\ \hline
206 &
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\text{H}_{\text{j}}\text{O}\)-adsorbed water molecules \\ **(on bundles)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(0.35\pm 0.03\) & \(0.37\) & \(0.37\) & \(410\) & \(410\) & \(410\) \\ \hline
230 & \(\text{OH}^{\text{-}}\) & \(0.50\pm 0.05\) & \(0.54\) & \(0.54\) & \(550\) & \(530\) & \(550\) \\ \hline
246 &
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\text{L}_{\text{L}}\text{O}\) defects, \\ \(\text{VI}_{\text{v}}\text{D}\) complexes \\ \end{tabular} & \(0.70\pm 0.08\) & \(0.77\) & \(0.75\) & \(2100\) & \(2000\) & \(2080\) \\ \hline
290 & \(\text{H}_{\text{j}}\text{O}^{\text{+}}\), \(\text{OH}^{\text{-}}\), \(\text{H}^{\text{+}}\) & \(0.34\pm 0.04\) & \(0.41\) & \(0.35\) & \(24{,}734\) & \(23{,}128\) & \(24{,}572\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Relaxator parameters in chalcanthite \(\text{CuSO}_{4}\,5\text{H}_{2}\text{O}\), calculated using the phenomenological theory of thermally stimulated depolarization currents (TSDC) for the parabolic potential barrier model (Graph 1 in Figure 4).