Talk:Slater's rules

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|

}}

This rule works well when used to calculate the radius needed for calculating the 1st ionization level energy. However, some examples to tie all this together would be nice:

1) Calculate Zeff

2) Calculate 1st ionization radius

3) Calculate 1st ionization energy level

Note: if you use H as an example, use at least 2 other elements b/c H is a special case that can easily be calculated using simplier methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.126.51.51 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

stuff worth adding:

1.examples

2.sigma instead of S, I don't know how to do this so I put S but sigma is the correct symbol

3.failings of the rule

The meaning of the second column is unclear to me. Could someone expand on this? zaiken 18:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, the second column gives the ENC for all electrons in the same set (but not the actual electron in question). So say you have 2 electrons in 3s aside from your third, the total ENC contribution from these two electrons = 2*0.35=0.7

hope that helps

What do empty cells mean? And what is the difference between 0 and N/A? --201.253.134.203 (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Principal and radial quantum numbers?

This article seems to distinguish between "principle quantum number", denoted "n", and "radial quantum number", denoted "n*". Are these actually the same thing? If so, I suggest standardizing on the former notation since it's more common elsewhere in Widipedia. If not, could you add some explanation of the difference? Ma-Ma-Max Headroom (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Good question which I had to go back to Slater's 1930 paper to straighten out. The answer is that n and n* are different, but n* is not the "radial" quantum number either as the article now claims. The correct definitions are:

1. n is the principal quantum number from the Bohr model and from the Schrödinger equation, as used in all chemistry books

2. n* is defined by Slater as an "effective" (not radial) quantum number, defined by the rule that for n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 respectively; n* = 1, 2, 3, 3.7, 4.0 and 4.2. This was an arbitrary adjustment to fit the data. I will explain this in the article.

3. The "radial" quantum number is sometimes defined as $n_r = n - \ell - 1 \,$

which equals the number of radial nodes in the orbital, as noted at the end of the article Principal quantum number. This is not the same as Slater's n* so I will remove the term from this article. Dirac66 (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Iron atom example

In the iron atom example, why is Zeff(3d)=6.25? 6.25 is calculated as 0.35*5 + 1.00*18, but it should be 0.35*13 + 1.00*10, being that "If the group is of the [d] or [f] type, an amount of 1.00 for each electron with a smaller principal quantum number". 16:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:Thank you for pointing out this problem. After checking Slater's 1930 paper, I see that our article has incorrectly stated the rule for d and f electrons. In Slater's paper the phrase "with a smaller principal quantum number" is only applied to the calculation of Zeff for s and p electrons. For d and f electrons what Slater actually wrote is just "if the shell is d or f, an amount 1.00 from every electron inside it." Since Slater defines (3s, 3p) as one group of electrons and 3d as a separate group, he considers 3s and 3p as being inside 3d. This is confirmed by his calculation for Fe(3d), which he explicitly writes as 26 - 5(0.35) - 18(1.00) = 6.25, just as you have calculated above. So our article had the wrong rule and the right value.

:I will correct the rule in the article to agree with Slater's paper. Dirac66 (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

effective nuclear charge

Please give calculating clearly in expanded form Abhishek jha Raja (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

:The calculations seem clear in the examples, except that I have now added the values for the subtractions Z_eff = Z - s. Is that what you wanted? Dirac66 (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)