Talk:Crystal field theory

message: With respect to the two splitting diagrams shown in the article, I think the tu orbitals should be labeled eg instead for an octahedral complex. I have taken the time to modify the diagrams shown and will upload them if any one concurs that it is more correct to label the tu orbitals as eg--YanA 06:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't see any tu orbitals here Chris 05:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I changed that while ago.--YanA 09:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting diagrams

message: Had quite a major rewrite, introducing high and low spin section. I propose to move ligand-field stabilisation here as well (and rename it crystal field stabilisation).--Chris 21:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Propose move crystal field splitting to ligand field splitting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.233.39 (talk)  23:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move

message: I have changed the old .jpg images to .png images to remove the compression artifacts.--YanA 06:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image change

message: I have rewritten this, to make it a bit clearer. However, I feel much of it is misleading and should be removed. It implies that the energy of the photon absorbed is equal to Δ, which is simply not true for d2 to d9 complexes. These often absorb at two or three different wavelengths, none of which is equal to Δ. What is written here is a gross oversimplification. Thoughts??
:OK, nobody said anything so I made a few changes to remove this problem.Chris 17:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining the colours of transition metal complexes 

message: Perhaps it would be useful to add that the splitting of orbitals under any type of symmetry can be easily deduced from the character tables (for example for d-orbitals in octahedral symmetry: look up z2, x2, xy, xz, yz, you will find eg and t2g). Though to figure out how the energies of the orbitals relate to one another chemical intuition (for the simple cases) or computation (for the more complicated ones) is required
94.210.104.70 (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection with point groups symmetry 

message: I wrote a section on CFSE. It could with a diagram to illustrate the 2/5 - 3/5 splittng though, should anybody feel so inclined...Chris 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll place it on my list of things to do.--YanA 01:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFSE 

message: *Touching up grammar and content (i.e. more consistent use of Δ with and without subscripts.
*Crystal field splitting diagrams for other geometries (most likely of similar quality to those already there).
I'll get to having most of this done by early June assuming no one objects to my plans or has other suggestions.--YanA 20:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned Work 

message: I don't know who thinks that Fe has 5 d-elektrons, but it has 6. 
: Um, iron(III) has 5. Chris 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron 

message: I'm thinking of creating crystal field stabilization energy as a subarticle of this one...thoughts? --HappyCamper (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article? 

message: OK, not trying to start an argument here, but the article needs to be consistent as per WP:MOS. Any of you regulars know who was first and which English (UK or US) the article was started in? We've got both in there (e.g. colour and stabilization). I'm happy to edit it but I'm not about to start a war all over again :) Freestyle-69 (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From looking at past versions of this article, it looks like it was started in American English, but it was transitioned to British English in late 2006 and early 2007.--YanA (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha- just made a minor edit and saw this- thanks. I'll put it into US English as per WP:MOS#National varieties of English when I get some time. Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Which English?

message: There are a few compounds that could be accommodated in the Spectrochemical series mentioned in the article. Some of them being EDTA, EtOH, etc.
If no one has objections, I'll do the edits in a day or two
Darshit 08:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spectrochemical series 

message: The square planar splitting diagram is wrong. The dz2 should be a higher energy state than dxy.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterbender (talk • contribs) 14:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved this most recent edit to the end of the talk page. The point is debatable. I have found a diagram in W.L. Jolly, Modern Inorganic Chemistry (McGraw-Hill 1984, p.364) which agrees with the diagram now in the article: in order of increasing energy (dxz, dyz), dz2, dxy, dx2-y2. The text near Jolly's diagram admits that the relative orbital energies depend on quantitative properties of the metal ion and ligands, but adds that the dz2 energy is comparable to (dxz, dyz) for complexes of Co(II), Ni(II) and Cu(II). Dirac66 (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Square planar splitting diagram

message: There are many weaknesses in this article. I recommend An introduction to transition-metal chemistry, Ligand-Field theory by Leslie E. Orgel, Methuen (1960) for a clear introduction to the topic. Petergans (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added this book to the list for Further reading. Dirac66 (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A general comment 

message: I think this page should include the crystal field splitting for linear and trigonal coordination entities like diamminesilver(I), dicyanidoaurate(I), triiodomercurate(II) etc. Sayan Ghosh 12:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crystal field splitting for linear and trigonal complexes 

message: The pattern of splitting is:
dx2-y2
dz2
dxy
dxz dyz
and Crystal field splitting parameter is:
D = dxy---->dx2-y2
But i need to know what is the energy of each orbital as per (del)° Aejaz Ul Bashir (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFT for square pyramidal geomatries 

message: I'm considering updating the splitting diagrams that I made 14 years ago. The current ones look pixelated and generally low quality. -- YanA (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating CFT splitting diagrams 

message: Sanyojkta band siddhant 2409:4052:90B:D511:0:0:E1B:88B1 (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  d-d transaction 

message: Hi there, 
there's a point that seems unclear to me, in the article as well as in all the courses I found on this topic. 
The first step of the reasoning for crystal field theory goes like: "if the metal ion is surrounded by a spherical shell of negative charges, the electrostatic repulsion (between the shell and the electrons of the ions) leads to an increase of the orbitals energy".
I would expect that the repulsion would generate a decrease in energy: adding an outer negative shell reinforces the electric field oriented from the nucleus to the outside, the electrons are "forced" towards the nucleus and more energy is required to release them (higher binding energy = lower (more negative) energy of the orbital).
Can someone clarify this?
87.86.104.114 (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: When ligands approach an ion, the electrons already on the ion suffer both repulsion by the ligands and increased attraction by the ionic nucleus, so it is not obvious which is stronger. The book cited by Miessler and Tarr says (p.318) that "The chief drawbacks to the crystal field approach are in its concept of the repulsion of orbitals by the ligands and its lack of any explanation for bonding in coordination complexes. ... any interaction between orbitals leads to both higher- and lower-energy molecular orbitals. The purely electrostatic approach does not allow for the lower (bonding) molecular orbitals, and thus fails to provide a complete picture of the electronic structure. Dirac66 (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does repulsion generate an increase in energy?