Talk:Ligand field theory

message: 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
:dx2−y2
since the stubby little hyphen is hard to see. Michael Hardy 18:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: LFSE

message: 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)
thread_title: Spectrochemical series

message: What in the world does this sentence mean in the first paragraph:
For first row transition metals, n = 3; for second and third row metals, n = 4 and 5, respectively.
OK - now I see that these are the principal quantum numbers - well that wasn't at all clear, so I am rewriting this sentence. 
As I read further, there are a lot of unexplained or outright unclear sections in this article.  In the figure, for example, what is "M-L sigma"???  I suspect what is going on is d2sp3 hybridization, with a single electron remaining in the 3 unhybridized orbitals, but I'm reading this because I really don't know this subject, so someone else had better undertake the rewriting.
A day later ...
Hey Brichcja!  I understand what you saw a need to correct, but you don't define "n" at any point, and what the heck are "five nd"???
The following sentence in the version you just created just makes no sense:
"A transition metal ion has nine atomic orbitals of appropriate energy to engage its ligands, which are five nd, one (n+1)s, and three (n+1)p orbitals. For first row transition metals, n = 3; for second and third row metals, n = 4 and 5, respectively."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.157.17 (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck?