Field

What the shape is for

Coordination compounds, where the shape decides a colour, a magnetic moment and a bond length — and where the one-electron picture used everywhere else in the collection stops being enough.

A d shell in an octahedral field. The five d energies in octahedral coordination, computed and drawn in units of the octahedral splitting. The dashed line is the barycentre, which the five levels sum to whatever the arrangement.

The splitting is a symmetry statement

Put six ligands round a metal and the five d orbitals stop being degenerate. Which of them stay together, and how many sets there are, follows from the point group alone — before any account of what the ligands are made of, and before any number is computed.

The same d shell in four fields. The five d energies in octahedral, tetrahedral, cubic, square planar coordinations, computed and drawn in units of the octahedral splitting. The dashed line is the barycentre, which the five levels sum to whatever the arrangement.

Two models, one ratio

A tetrahedron splits a d shell by four ninths of what an octahedron does. Two models that share nothing but the ligand directions — an integral over a point-charge potential and a rotated diagonal matrix — both produce that number to eight decimal places, and neither was told it.

Where the d–d band falls, and where the eye is. Nine ligands' measured splittings as wavelengths, on a logarithmic scale, with the visible range shaded. Three fall inside it; the halides sit in the near infrared and carbon monoxide in the ultraviolet. The splitting decides where the band is and does not decide what is seen.

Where a d–d band falls

A splitting is an energy and an energy is a wavelength, so the ligand field fixes where a complex absorbs. Only three of nine common ligands put that band inside the visible range at all — and the most intensely coloured transition-metal compound in the cupboard has no d electrons to excite.

Eighteen electrons, from a reduction. The ligand σ orbitals of an octahedral complex reduced in Oh (A₁g ⊕ Eg ⊕ T₁u), matched against the metal's nine valence orbitals by species, and counted. 6 bonding and 3 non-bonding orbitals hold 18 electrons.

Eighteen is a count

The eighteen-electron rule is usually justified by adding up an s, three p and five d orbitals. That is a restatement rather than a reason. Reduce the ligand orbitals in the complex's own point group, match them against the metal's by symmetry, and the number that comes out is the count of orbitals lying below a gap — which is eighteen for an octahedron, sixteen for a square plane, and eighteen again for a tetrahedron for a different reason.

Donation strengthens the C–O bond, back-donation weakens it. Two interactions computed as two-level problems: 0.39 of an electron donated out of the ligand's σ orbital, worth 0.06 on the C–O bond order, and 0.5 donated back into π*, worth -0.4. Beside them, six measured stretching frequencies: five isoelectronic species differing only in charge, and free CO.

Back-bonding is two interactions

A carbon monoxide molecule bound to a metal donates from an orbital that is slightly antibonding and accepts into one that is strongly antibonding, so the two halves of the bonding move its stretching frequency in opposite directions. Five isoelectronic complexes differing only in charge settle which wins — and one of them stretches above free CO.

One metal orbital, two ligands competing for it. Metal–ligand bond orders in a three-orbital model as the left-hand ligand's interaction is turned up. Its own bond order rises and the bond order to the ligand opposite falls, from 0.62 at equal strengths to 0.42 at the strongest. Nothing else in the model can carry the effect: switch the second bond off and it vanishes exactly.

The trans influence is an overlap argument

Two ligands on opposite sides of a metal both bond through the same metal orbital, and there is only one of it. Strengthen one and the bond order to the other falls — computed exactly on three levels, and measured as a bond length that grows by a tenth of an ångström.

$d⁹: what a tetragonal distortion is worth. The electronic energy of d⁹, the elastic cost of the distortion, and their sum, against the fractional elongation of the axial bonds. The best distortion is at 0.14 and it is worth 0.54 in units of eσ; d⁶ in the same field gains 0, which is nothing.$

Copper is never quite octahedral

A d⁹ ion in an octahedral field has three electrons in a doubly degenerate pair, which cannot be shared evenly. The energy it gains by distorting is linear in the distortion and the elastic cost is quadratic, so no stiffness holds the symmetric structure — and the four configurations with an even occupation gain exactly nothing.

The spin-only count against nine measured moments. Each ion's magnetic moment computed from the number of unpaired electrons alone, √(n(n+2)) Bohr magnetons, beside the measured value. The two agree to a hundredth for the first five and the measurement exceeds the count by up to 0.93 for Co²⁺ — always in the same direction, which is what an omission looks like rather than noise.

A moment counts electrons, not orbitals

A magnetic moment is one of the few chemical measurements that returns an integer. Feed the count of unpaired electrons into √(n(n+2)) and nine first-row ions come back within a hundredth for five of them — and the five that miss all miss the same way, which is what a missing term looks like.

d⁶: two states, and where they cross. The energy of the high-spin and low-spin fillings of d⁶ against the splitting, in units of the pairing energy. They cross at Δ = P exactly, with 4 unpaired electrons below it and 0 above.

The pairing energy decides the moment

Whether the sixth d electron pairs up in the lower set or goes alone into the upper one is a competition between the splitting and the cost of pairing. Run the filling rules over the whole shell and exactly four configurations have a choice — and every one of them changes state at Δ = P exactly.

A coupling that is second order in the hopping. The singlet–triplet splitting of a two-site Hubbard model, and the same quantity multiplied by U. The product settles on −4t² — -4 at U = 64 — which is what makes the coupling a second-order effect rather than a term somebody put in.

What couples two spins

Two magnetic ions a few ångströms apart interact far too strongly to be doing it magnetically — the dipole–dipole energy is about 0.06 wavenumbers and the measured couplings run to hundreds. What couples them is hopping, which the Pauli principle allows for antiparallel spins and forbids for parallel ones, and the exact answer is −4t²/U.

Sixteen electrons, from a reduction. The ligand σ orbitals of a square planar complex reduced in D4h (A₁g ⊕ B₁g ⊕ Eu), matched against the metal's nine valence orbitals by species, and counted. 4 bonding and 4 non-bonding orbitals hold 16 electrons.

Sixteen is also a count

A transition metal brings nine valence orbitals, and nine filled orbitals is eighteen electrons. A square plane leaves more of those nine unmatched than an octahedron does and still holds fewer electrons, because one of the leftovers is out of reach.

Two orbitals, 2 electrons, S = 0 and S = 0.2. Two interacting orbitals with 2 electrons in them, drawn twice: once with the overlap set to zero and once with it kept at 0.2. Dropping the overlap makes the two shifts equal, which is the picture usually taught; keeping it makes the upper level rise by more than the lower falls, which is why four electrons in two orbitals is a repulsion.

Overlap is not interaction

Two orbitals interact by the square of their coupling divided by the distance between them in energy. A coupling half again as large, with a gap four times worse, buys a third less stabilisation — so the pair that overlaps best is often not the pair that bonds best.

What the angular momentum operator connects. The five real d functions, with a line between each pair the z component of orbital angular momentum connects and the size of the connection on it. Written in this basis the operator is i times an antisymmetric matrix, so its expectation in any real function is exactly zero — that is the quenching, and it holds before any field is applied. The three t₂g functions are connected among themselves, so as a SET they carry eigenvalues 1, 0, -1; the two eg functions are each connected only to something outside the pair, so as a set they carry nothing.

An orbital carries no angular momentum

The d orbitals every chemist draws carry exactly no orbital angular momentum, and the proof is one line about a matrix being antisymmetric. A set of three of them carries a whole unit, which is why the spin-only formula works for most ions and fails for cobalt by nearly a Bohr magneton.

Two humps and a dip, which is not what a trend looks like. The measured enthalpy of hydration of the first transition series, in kilojoules per mole, against a straight line fitted through it. The measurements do not fall on the line: they rise and dip at manganese, rise and dip again at zinc. Both dips are at configurations with no ligand field stabilisation — d⁵ high spin and d¹⁰ — and the line alone accounts for only 73 per cent of the variation.

The double hump and what removes it

The hydration enthalpies of the first transition series do not lie on a line — they rise, dip at manganese, rise and dip again at zinc. Subtract the ligand field stabilisation computed from the same model that describes their spectra and what is left is a line, with the one fitted parameter landing inside the range a spectrum measures.

The bonds are what is left over

Every metal wants eighteen electrons and a metal–metal bond gives one to each of its partners, so the number of bonds in a cluster is what is left over after the counting. It works for every carbonyl cluster up to five metals and fails at six by exactly one bond — where the other counting rule, the one boranes are analysed with, is right.

Which way the line moves counts the electrons. Three ions, their computed g-values and their measured ones. The shift is −2λ times a sum of squared matrix elements over energy denominators; the matrix elements are exactly two for Lz between dx²−y² and dxy and exactly one for Lx between dx²−y² and dyz, which is why the shift along the axis is four times the shift across it. The last column is what is left over — the orbital reduction factor, which is below one when the electron spends part of its time on the ligands and is a covalency measured with a magnet.

The g-value is the orbital coming back

A ligand field quenches the orbital angular momentum of a d electron, and spin-orbit coupling gives some of it back — upward for a shell more than half full and downward for one less than half full. Which way a resonance line moves counts the electrons, and the size of the move comes from two matrix elements and one optical splitting.

The electrons repel each other less inside the complex. Seven chromium(III) complexes. Δ is the first band; B is solved from the second in closed form; β is B against the free ion's 918 cm⁻¹, which is measured on the gaseous ion. Every β is below one — the electrons in a complex repel each other less than the same electrons in the free ion, because they have more room. The two orderings are different: fluoride splits least and reduces the repulsion least, cyanide does both most, and the middle of the two series is not the same middle.

The electrons repel less inside the complex

Two measured bands determine two parameters in closed form, and one of them is the repulsion between the d electrons — which comes out below the free ion's value for every complex, by between two and forty-seven per cent. The ligands that split most are not the ligands that reduce the repulsion most, so a complex is characterised by two numbers rather than one.

A moment between two integers

A magnetic moment is celebrated as one of the few chemical measurements that returns an integer: count the unpaired electrons, feed the count into a formula, and nine first-row ions come out right. That works when one state lies far below the others. Sit a complex at its own crossover and the same measurement returns 0.30 at 80 K and 3.61 at 400 K — a quantity that counts nothing and is a temperature in disguise.

The count that is not always eighteen

The eighteen-electron rule is a shell closure, and an octahedral level diagram has two of them — one at twelve electrons and one at eighteen. Which is deeper is decided by the sign of one parameter: with a π acceptor the gap above eighteen is 3.720 and above twelve 2.280, and with a π donor the two swap over exactly.

The total energy against the distortion, at several gaps. The elastic cost plus the second-order lowering, for five gaps between the ground state and the excited state it mixes with. The critical gap is 1.00: above it the symmetric structure is the minimum, below it the minimum has moved off zero, and nothing about the molecule is degenerate in either case.

A distortion needs two states

A degenerate electronic state cannot survive — that is the Jahn–Teller theorem, and it can be computed. A closed shell can fail to survive too, and the condition is a number: the symmetric structure holds only while the nearest excited state of the right symmetry lies above 2λ²/k, and one of ten symmetry species in an octahedron is the right one.

The same sample, fitted over four temperature ranges. A pair coupled at -50 cm⁻¹, its susceptibility computed exactly, fitted to a Curie–Weiss law over four ranges. The moment and the Weiss temperature the fit reports both depend on which range was used, and the quality of the fit does not warn about it.

The moment a fit invents

One coupled pair of spins, its susceptibility computed exactly, fitted to a Curie–Weiss law over four temperature ranges. The moments reported are 2.471, 2.535, 2.566 and 3.590 Bohr magnetons, and the Weiss temperatures −51, −78, −78 and −292 K — from one sample, measured perfectly, with three of the four fits agreeing with their own data to better than a part in three hundred.

The total is the same in both columns; nothing else is. Ten complexes counted by both conventions. The neutral method gives the metal its group number and every ligand what it brings as a neutral fragment; the ionic method assigns an oxidation state and gives every anionic ligand a pair. The two totals agree in every row. The oxidation state and the d count do not agree wherever the oxidation state is not zero, and the moments the two d counts predict differ by as much as 2.83 Bohr magnetons.

The same count, two oxidation states

Count a complex by the neutral method and by the ionic one and the total is the same integer every time — eighteen for ferrocene, sixteen for tetrachloroplatinate, twenty for hexaaquanickel. The oxidation state and the d count are not: hexaaquairon is d⁶ on one convention and d⁸ on the other, and the two predict spin-only moments of 4.90 and 2.83 against a measured 5.40.

The splitting against the square of one computed overlap. five chromium(III) complexes: the measured ligand-field splitting against the square of the metal–ligand σ overlap, computed from Slater-type functions at the measured bond lengths. The angular overlap model says the splitting is proportional to that square and to no other power, and the line drawn through the origin is that proportionality with nothing fitted but its slope. Across a series in which the splitting doubles, the ratio varies by 30.75 per cent.

The splitting against something structural

The angular overlap model says a ligand field splitting is proportional to the square of one overlap integral and to no other power. Computing that integral from Slater functions at the measured bond lengths, for five chromium complexes whose splittings run from 13,600 to 26,700 wavenumbers, the ratio varies by thirty-one per cent with nothing fitted. And a power law on the donor's effective charge, at an exponent nobody predicted, does slightly better.

The coupling a fit reports, and the coupling the sample has. Exact susceptibilities of Heisenberg chains of two, four, six and eight spins, every one of them coupled at -50 cm⁻¹, each fitted with the two-spin expression over 80–600 K. The two-spin sample returns its own coupling exactly; every longer chain returns one too large, by more the longer it is, up to 20.9 per cent. Every one of those fits has an R² above 0.99, so nothing in the fit reports that anything is wrong.

The model is what is fitted

Fit a pair of coupled spins with the two-spin expression and it hands back the coupling exactly, from any temperature range. Fit a chain of eight with the same expression and it hands back −66.7 where the sample has −50, with a residual of 0.998 and a g factor of 1.973 — three numbers of which only the last says anything is wrong, and it is the one nobody looks at.

The whole difference lives at the two ends. The energy difference between the two dimerisations of an open chain, held at the same distortion, multiplied by the number of sites. It settles on a constant — 1.09 in units of the hopping — so the difference per site falls as one over the length, with a fitted exponent of -1. An end is a bond that is not there, and it is worth the same amount whatever it is attached to.

The distortion the ends decide

A chain of an even number of sites has an odd number of bonds, so its two dimerisations are different molecules rather than one molecule translated. Held at the same distortion they differ by 1.08715 in units of the hopping, whatever the length — a fixed amount of energy living at the two ends, with the per-site difference falling as one over the length at a fitted exponent of −0.99986. And below a hundred and twenty-eight sites the second dimerisation does not exist at all.

The metal's charge is a coordinate, and the count is not. The metal's charge in an octahedral d6 complex, against how much of each shared pair the ligand is given. Half each is Mulliken's rule and the whole to the ligand is the assumption an oxidation state makes; the answer runs over 2.06 electrons between them. The oxidation state itself is 0, which is off the end of the range, and the electron count is the same number at every point on it.

An integer nobody measured

The oxidation state of chromium in the hexacarbonyl is zero. Its charge, computed from the same wavefunction, is anywhere between −3.04 and −0.98 depending on how the shared electrons are divided — and the integer sits outside that whole range. The electron count, meanwhile, is eighteen at every point on it.

What the second channel buys, and what it cannot. Five measured splittings against three models. Adding the π overlap takes the error from 1747 to 1402 cm⁻¹, and telling the model which ligand is an acceptor takes it to 961 — so the fact about occupation is worth more than twice the integral. The two halides are the pair that fixes which model is which, and no single one of the three gets both them and cyanide right.

The integral that cannot count electrons

Adding the π channel to a ligand-field splitting means one more overlap integral over the same two orbitals at the same distance. It removes a fifth of the error. Telling the model which ligand is a π acceptor — one word per ligand, quoted rather than computed — removes forty-five per cent, because an overlap cannot know whether the orbital it reaches is full or empty.

How many parameters a curve is worth

A susceptibility curve routinely carries four fitted parameters and the question of whether it can support them is never asked. It has an arithmetic answer: the four directions the fit sees span a factor of five hundred, so one per cent data fix the first two to under three per cent and the last to thirty-seven — and forty points reaching two kelvin are worth more than sixteen thousand starting at twenty.

The count that cannot be broken by strength

Back-donation puts electrons into orbitals that are not the metal's, and the eighteen-electron rule counts the metal's nine. Turning the π channel up as far as it will go never breaks it: the counted orbital's metal share falls from 100 per cent to 54.67 and approaches a half from above without reaching it. What does flip it is not strength but order.

The four things a susceptibility curve measures, in order. The four directions in the parameter space, best fixed first, each written as the product of powers it is. The Jacobian is logarithmic, so a direction is a set of exponents and a combination is a product — which is why the answer can be printed. The best-determined is g · J^-0.33, fixed to 0.08 per cent by a curve measured to one per cent; the worst is tip · rho^-0.40, fixed to 40. Neither is one parameter's own axis.

The product a curve measures

A susceptibility curve's fourth parameter is undetermined, and the question is which combination the free direction actually is. It is a product of powers, because the Jacobian is logarithmic — and at the usual window it is the temperature-independent term divided by the 0.40 power of the monomer fraction, fixed to forty per cent, while the product one place up is fixed to 6.7. A paper could print that instead of four numbers.

The gap that makes sixteen special does not move. The gap above the sixteen-electron closure of a square plane and above the eighteen-electron closure of an octahedron, against the π strength. The octahedron's is 3eσ − 4eπ and moves at every value; the square plane's is exactly 2eσ until the π strength reaches a quarter of the σ one, because the orbital that sets it is d(z²) and a square-planar ligand set has nothing of that symmetry to offer. Past the threshold the two are the same number, which is not a coincidence: beyond it the square plane's gap is set by d(xy) and the expression is the octahedron's.

The orbital a ligand cannot reach

The sixteen-electron count of a square plane is a statement about an energy rather than about symmetry matching, so it was the count that ought to be sensitive to a π channel where the eighteen-electron one is not. It is not sensitive either — and for a sharper reason. The orbital that sets its gap is d(z²), and a square-planar ligand set contains nothing of that symmetry, so the gap is exactly 2eσ until the π strength reaches a quarter of the σ one.

What the gap alone would predict, and what was fitted. Each halide's π scale as a multiple of fluoride's: the value fitted to the spectrochemical series, against what the energy denominator alone gives with the metal orbital at the vacuum level — which is the weakest the denominator effect can be. It over-predicts at every ligand, and moving the metal level down makes it worse.

The gap that would have to be smaller

An angular overlap parameter is an overlap squared over an energy denominator, and the usual fit folds the denominator away. Put the measured ionisation energies back in and the denominator alone over-predicts the trend down the halide group at every metal level a donor permits — the smallest it can give is 1.67 against a fitted 1.43. So the overlap has to shrink down the group, which is the opposite of the usual expectation.

The sixteen-electron gap, from a plane to a tetrahedron. The gap above eight d electrons as four ligands are folded out of a square plane towards a tetrahedron, at three π strengths. It is 2eσ exactly at the plane whatever the π strength is, and exactly zero at the tetrahedron whatever it is — the upper three levels there are the degenerate t₂ set. In between the three curves separate, and the separation is what the π channel is doing.

The gap that only a tetrahedron closes

The sixteen-electron gap is 2eσ exactly, and a square-planar π set cannot touch it because d(z²) has no partner there. Fold the ligands out of the plane and the gap survives almost intact for fifteen degrees, closes to nothing only at the tetrahedron — and loses its exactness at the very first degree.

The acceptors' π* levels, as measured. For each π acceptor: the energy at which a slow electron is temporarily captured, which is the π level above the vacuum, and the π scale this collection's series carries for it. Carbon monoxide's and dinitrogen's resonances are measured on the molecule itself; cyanide's cannot be, because an electron cannot be attached to an anion, so hydrogen cyanide's stands in for it — the same π with a proton where the metal would be.

A denominator that fails both ways

The energy gap an e_π folds away over-predicts the halide trend at every metal level a donor allows, and the acceptors look out of reach because a π* is not an atomic level. It is measurable — a slow electron is captured by it — and on that side the same denominator under-predicts. No metal level fixes either, and the two want it moved in opposite directions.

What a fifth ligand does to the gap above eight electrons. The gap between the fourth and fifth d levels as one axial σ donor is brought in, and as two are. It closes exactly linearly — 2eσ less one eσ for each unit of axial σ strength — and a full octahedron has none of it left. The rule of sixteen has a gap to be about only while the axial positions are empty, and how much of it survives is a number rather than a yes or no.

The ligand the rule was waiting for

A sixteen-electron complex is called reactive because it can add a ligand, and the gap that makes it sixteen points straight at where the ligand arrives. Bringing one in closes the gap exactly linearly — and leaves its exactness completely untouched, which is the opposite of what bending the same complex does.

Folding two ligands makes the gap bigger before it makes it smaller. The gap above eight electrons as two of the four ligands fold to the same side. It rises first, to 2.0938eσ at 20°, before falling. The four-ligand path only ever closes it, so the direction the gap moves is not a property of bending — it is a property of which ligands bend.

The distortion that opens the gap

Two distortions close the sixteen-electron gap — one by bending all four ligands, one by adding a fifth. Folding two of the four makes it larger, by five per cent, before it makes it smaller. And it costs the exactness at the first degree, while the gap is still growing, so the size of a gap and whether it is exact are not one measurement.

The two overlaps, squared, at the measured bond lengths. For each chromium(III) donor: the σ overlap squared, a metal 3d(z²) against the donor's p(z), and the π overlap squared, a 3d(xz) against its p(x). Everything is computed — the radial functions from Slater's rules, the separation from the measured bond length, the integral by quadrature. Chloride's π overlap is 3.5 times fluoride's, which is the opposite of what the overlap argument required of it.

The overlap the model is not proportional to

Without a computed π overlap, the natural argument reasons about one instead: the denominator over-predicts the halide trend, so the overlap must shrink down the group to cancel part of it. Computed, it grows — 3.5 times from fluoride to chloride. And the fitted parameter changes sign across the series, which no ratio of squared overlaps can do.

The exponent's sign is the ring's parity. The power the temperature-independent term carries in the free combination, for an open chain and for rings of five to ten spins. Every odd ring is negative and every even ring and the chain is positive — so the free product is ρ·χ_TIP raised to a power whose SIGN changes, which is a different combination rather than a shifted one. Nothing here is a near miss: the closest pair on either side of zero are +0.23 and −0.29.

The sign a frustrated ring changes

There is a sharper question than whether a low-temperature feature buys back a fourth parameter: does it change which combination is free? It does, and by a sign. Every odd ring of spins leaves free the monomer fraction times a negative power of the temperature-independent term, and every even ring a positive power, with no case in between.

Two charges, and three ligands no charge reaches. The metal effective charge each ligand would need on its own for the model's ratio to equal the fitted one. The band is the range Slater's rules allow chromium. Two ligands have an answer, both far outside it and 2.30 apart from each other. Chloride needs more than the overlap rule can be trusted to compute. Ammonia's fitted parameter is exactly zero and cyanide's is negative, and a quotient of squares is neither.

A contraction that cannot reach three of them

The angular overlap model's own derivation gives a π/σ ratio that disagrees with the fitted parameters by up to sixfold, and the metal's contraction is the obvious candidate to account for it. The whole range Slater's rules allow moves the ratio by a factor of two. Two ligands need charges far outside it, one needs a charge past where the overlap rule can be trusted at all, and two are unreachable at any charge because a quotient of squared overlaps cannot be zero or negative.

The sign follows the count, on a ring and on a chain alike. The free combination's exponent against the number of spins, for open chains and for rings. Every even count is positive and every odd count is negative, whichever topology it is — and an open chain has no frustration at all. The usual comparison sets frustrated odd rings against an unfrustrated chain of eight, which varies the frustration and the parity together.

It was the count, not the frustration

The free combination's exponent comes out negative on every odd ring and positive on every even ring and on an open chain, and the sign was put down to frustration. The control was a chain of eight. A chain of five is not frustrated in any sense — a chain is bipartite and every bond can be satisfied — and its exponent is −0.792.

The direction the gap cannot see

A two-ligand fold opens the sixteen-electron gap and a four-ligand bend closes it, so a distortion mixing the two must pass through a direction the gap does not move along. It does, and the direction is the antisymmetric fold — one pair of trans ligands up, the other down. Its blindness is exact, because exchanging the two pairs is a symmetry of the arrangement.

Nine clusters, two candidate rules, and one of them survives. Every cluster's exponent, with whether it is frustrated and whether its count is even. Frustration is decided by whether the coupling graph is bipartite, since an antiferromagnet can satisfy every bond exactly when a two-colouring exists. All four decisive cases come out positive — 0.2136, 0.2084, 0.1924, 0.2048 — so the parity rule survives and the frustration account does not. The gap between the lowest positive exponent and the highest negative one is 1.0497.

The frustrated cluster with an even count

A parity account of the exponent's sign replaced a frustration account and left the two still confounded: every case tested had frustration and odd parity aligned. A tetrahedron of four spins is frustrated and even. Its exponent is +0.2084, and so are those of three more clusters the two accounts disagree about — but the mechanism proposed with the parity rule is refuted along with the account it replaced.

A blindness that is inherited

There is a direction the sixteen-electron gap does not move along, and it is tempting to call it the one a complex is softest along without paying for it. That second half is a claim about an energy the gap model has no term for. Put the ligand repulsion on the same family and the answer splits: where a symmetry fixes the blind direction the repulsion is blind to it too, exactly, and slightly downhill — and where no symmetry fixes it, the two are nearly perpendicular.

Sixteen clusters, and the couplings at which each one's sign changes. The sign of the exponent for every cluster across couplings from 2 to 1000 cm⁻¹, read at a 20–300 K window, with each change of sign marked. No cluster keeps one sign across the range. The clusters with a ground spin change sign twice below 150 cm⁻¹, at couplings that fall as the ground spin rises; the singlets first change sign above 300 cm⁻¹. The spin rule — positive for a singlet ground state, negative otherwise — is right on all sixteen at once only between 20.1 and 47.0 cm⁻¹, and the working point every earlier reading used, 50 cm⁻¹, is just outside it.

The sign rule holds between two poles

The sign of a susceptibility fit's exponent was put down to the parity of the spin count, then to the spin of the ground state, and every cluster tried had the two aligned. A star of four spins is even with a ground spin of one, and its exponent is −6.84. But swept across the coupling, every cluster's sign changes, through poles the ground spin places, and the spin rule is right on all sixteen clusters only between 20.1 and 47.0 cm⁻¹.

Every window sits above the value it was meant to reach. For each of the five chromium(III) complexes, the whole range of π/σ ratios the model can produce as the ligand's donor atom is taken through every oxidation state it has — from its bare nucleus to its closed-shell anion — drawn as a bar, with the fitted parameter marked beneath it. The three ligands whose fitted parameter is positive have bars that begin above it and never come down. The other two have fitted parameters of zero and of a negative number, which a quotient of squared overlaps cannot be at any charge.

The correction that moves three of them backwards

Every ligand radial function in the angular overlap sweeps was a neutral atom's, while three of the five donors carry a formal charge. Giving each one the charge it actually has moves three of the five computed ratios — and moves all three away from the fitted parameter, none towards it. The whole window each donor's own oxidation states allow sits above the value it was meant to reach.

Two interactions, and they push the metal in opposite directions. Each ligand's filled π and empty π against a metal d level, on one energy scale with the vacuum at zero. The π lies below the metal and pushes it up, which is the only interaction the model's derivation has; the π lies above and pushes it down, which is the one it lacks. Both level positions are measured — an ionisation energy and an attachment energy — and the metal's is the single quantity nothing here measures, drawn at -8.0 electronvolts and swept elsewhere.

The channel that points at the metal

Two ligands in the spectrochemical series carry a fitted π parameter no quotient of squared overlaps can produce, because it is negative. Giving the derivation the second interaction it lacks makes both of them negative at every metal level — and the reason is not the energy denominators, which favour the donor channel in all three cases. It is where each orbital keeps its amplitude.

$Where the nuisance parameters separate hardly depends on purity. For each of the seven clusters with a ground spin, the two couplings below 150 cm⁻¹ at which the monomer fraction and the temperature-independent term are uncorrelated, against the monomer fraction from half a per cent to sixteen, on logarithmic axes. Every cluster keeps both at every fraction. For ground spins of one and above they move by under three per cent; for the three doublets by about a tenth. A circle marks a pole of the third direction's exponent there and a square a zero.$

Purity renames the poles

A susceptibility fit's sign poles were located at one monomer impurity, two per cent, and a real sample's impurity is rarely known. Swept from half a per cent to sixteen, the couplings where the fit's nuisance parameters separate barely move for ground spins of one and above and move a tenth for doublets. But the same separation stops being a pole and becomes a zero of the exponent at a few per cent, and above six to eight per cent every singlet acquires separations of its own.

Stars drift above the band and K₂,ₙ graphs fall below it. The upper separation coupling times (S + ½) against ground spin for every cluster computed, with the seven that defined the band shaded between 114.7 and 129.3 cm⁻¹. The stars, from four centres to eight, run 129.3, 114.7, 117.3, 127.2, 140.3 — down and then steadily up. The K₂,ₙ graphs, from K₂,₃ to K₂,₆, run 114.8, 124.0, 100.9, 90.0 — up and then steadily down. K₃,₅ sits at 113.9. Seven clusters of up to six centres happened to lie where the two families cross.

Five more clusters break the band

Seven spin clusters put their upper separation coupling times the ground spin plus a half inside a band from 115 to 129 cm⁻¹, which looked like a law of where a susceptibility fit's nuisance parameters decouple. Five clusters built to test it — two larger stars and three larger bipartite graphs — land inside it once. Stars drift above and bipartite graphs below, and neither the shape of the curve nor the first excitation places the separation instead.

All essays