Asked by Garcia
Consider an ionic compound, MX2, composed of generic metal M and generic halogen X.
The enthalphy of formation of MX2= -891.
The enthalphy of sublimation of M= 141.
The first and second ionization energies of M are 605 and 1392.
The electron affinity of X= -339.
The bond energy of X2= 177.
I used the Born-Haber cycle and came up with:
-Lattice energy of MX2=-891-(141+88.5+605-678) to come up with the answer that the -lattice energy of MX2 is -1047.5 but i'm getting marked wrong. Where did I go wrong?????
The enthalphy of formation of MX2= -891.
The enthalphy of sublimation of M= 141.
The first and second ionization energies of M are 605 and 1392.
The electron affinity of X= -339.
The bond energy of X2= 177.
I used the Born-Haber cycle and came up with:
-Lattice energy of MX2=-891-(141+88.5+605-678) to come up with the answer that the -lattice energy of MX2 is -1047.5 but i'm getting marked wrong. Where did I go wrong?????
Answers
Answered by
DrBob222
I just took a brief look; where is the 1392 for second ionization potential? I don't see that in your calculation.
Answered by
Garcia
Where would I add that in to my calculation? Like would it look like this:
-Lattice energy of MX2=-891-(141+88.5+605+1392-678)
-Lattice energy of MX2=-891-(141+88.5+605+1392-678)
Answered by
DrBob222
Yes, that should do it.
Also, I wonder about taking 1/2 x 177. If you do Cl2 bond dissociation for say NaCl, then you take 1/2 Bond energy because you're using only 1/2 of it to make Cl^-. But in this case you're using both parts of the X2 bond energy to make 2X^-. You multiplied 2 x electron affinity (and that is proper).
Also, I wonder about taking 1/2 x 177. If you do Cl2 bond dissociation for say NaCl, then you take 1/2 Bond energy because you're using only 1/2 of it to make Cl^-. But in this case you're using both parts of the X2 bond energy to make 2X^-. You multiplied 2 x electron affinity (and that is proper).
Answered by
Jordynn
where is the -678 coming from?
Answered by
Matt
-678 is electron affinity * 2
Answered by
Thien
Shouldn't it be +678 because the formula is E= deltaHf-(H sub + IE + HBE/2)- HEA?
There are no AI answers yet. The ability to request AI answers is coming soon!
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.