Certain complex salts, notably ferro‐ and ferricyanides, have susceptibilities much lower than those predicted by the Bose‐Stoner ``spin only'' formula. The first interpretation was that given by Pauling on the basis of (I) directed wave functions. In the present paper it is shown that alternative explanations are possible with (II) the crystalline potential model of Schlapp and Penney, or with (III) Mulliken's method of molecular orbitals. In any of the theories, the interatomic forces, if sufficiently large, will disrupt the Russell‐Saunders coupling, and make the deepest state have a smaller spin, and hence smaller susceptibility, than that given by the Hund rule. This situation is not to be confused with that in normal paramagnetic salts, such as sulphates or fluorides, where only the spin‐orbit coupling is destroyed. The similarity of the predictions with all three theories is comforting, since any one method in valence usually involves rather questionable approximations. Because of this similarity, a preference between the theories cannot be established merely from ability to interpret the anomalously low magnetism of the cyanides. Covalent bonds, as in cyanides, seem to be more effective in suppressing magnetism than are ionic ones, as in fluorides, but so far the evidence to this effect is empirical rather than theoretical.

1.
J. H. Van Vleck, The Theory of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities, Chap. XI.
2.
L.
Pauling
,
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
53
,
1367
(
1931
);
L.
Pauling
and
M. L.
Huggins
,
Zeits. f. Krist.
87
,
205
(
1934
).
3.
For this rule see, for instance, Pauling and Goudsmit, The Structure of Line Spectra, p. 165.
4.
R. S.
Mulliken
,
Phys. Rev.
40
,
55
(
1932
).
5.
E.
Cotton‐Feytis
,
Ann. Chim.
4
,
9
(
1925
).
6.
Cf. for instance,
L. C.
Jackson
,
Proc. Roy. Soc.
A140
,
695
(
1933
).
7.
For explanation of the notation dγ,dε see Eqs. (5)–(6) of the preceding paper in this issue.
8.
W. G.
Penney
and
R.
Schlapp
,
Phys. Rev.
41
,
194
(
1932
);
R.
Schlapp
and
W. G.
Penney
,
Phys. Rev.
42
,
666
(
1932
); ,
Phys. Rev.
O.
Jordahl
,
Phys. Rev.
45
,
87
(
1934
); ,
Phys. Rev.
R.
Janes
,
Phys. Rev.
48
,
78
(
1935
).,
Phys. Rev.
9.
See, for instance,
H.
Bethe
,
Ann. d. Physik
3
,
143
(
1929
).
10.
C. J.
Gorter
,
Phys. Rev.
42
,
437
(
1932
).
11.
In Cr+++ an aver‐all splitting of about 8 volts is obtained by Schlapp and Penney, a value which seems unduly high and out of line with their other results. As they intimate, the explanation of this discrepancy is probably that in Cr+++, the computation of the splitting is unusually sensitive to small experimental errors in the determination of the absolute value of the susceptibility because the latter has very nearly the “spin‐only” value in this particular ion. Schlapp and Penney employed the Leiden data on chrome alum. It is interesting to note that a splitting (3 volts) of about the usual size is yielded by Janes’8 recent measurements on K3Cr(SCN)54H2O. Incidentally, the separation 17,200 cm−1 which Janes obtains in cupric salts relates to the over‐all splitting, rather to the constant D as stated in his article, and so is not unreasonable.
12.
Spectroscopic data are not available on the Fe+++ ion. However, the separation of the various terms belonging to the configuration d6 in Fe+++ should be somewhat greater than (probably a little less than double) the corresponding separations in the homologous ion Cr+, and the interval d56S−d54G, for instance, is known to be 2.5 volts in Cr+.
13.
Unfortunately it does not appear possible to estimate directly from theoretical considerations the crystalline splitting to be expected even with an ideal ionic structure and assumed interatomic separations obtained from Pauling’s atomic radii. So one can only deduce the splittings empirically from the magnetic data. The difficulty is that one does not know well enough the effective charge Z to be used in computing the d wave functions. Clearly Z should be somewhat greater than 4, the value corresponding to perfect screening, and somewhat less than the effective charge Zip deduced from ionization potentials, as the value of Z to be used in computing r4¯ etc. is less than that involved in 1/r¯. Extrapolated spectroscopic data indicate that Zip is about 6. In unpublished calculations, Howard finds that the interval dγ−dε amounts to 4 volts if Z = 4 and to 1 volt if Z = 6, provided the further assumptions are made that the distance Fe‐F is 1.91A, and that the F ions act like point charges.
14.
The intervals d74F−d74P of Co++ and d83F−d83P of Ni++ have not been observed directly, but probably do not differ greatly from the intervals d7(4F)4s2−d7(4P)4s2 of Co I, and d8(3F)4s2−d8(3P)4s2 of Ni I, respectively. These latter intervals are known and are both 1.9 volts. That the addition of the 4s electrons does not change too materially the separations of the core states is indicated, for instance, by the fact that the frequency difference d4(3F)4s 4F−d4(3G)4s 4G in Cr II deviates only 4 percent from the difference d43F−d43G in Cr III (see Bacher and Goudsmit’s tables).
15.
F. H.
Spedding
and
G. C.
Nutting
,
J. Chem. Phys.
2
,
421
(
1935
).
16.
For explanation of the notation for the group representations see
R. S.
Mulliken
,
Phys. Rev.
43
,
279
(
1933
).
17.
Cf. also
J. H.
Van Vleck
and
A.
Sherman
,
Rev. Mod. Phys.
7
,
218
222
(
1935
).
18.
L.
Pauling
,
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
54
,
988
(
1932
); Pauling and Huggins, reference 2.
19.
H.
Brasseur
,
A.
de Rassenfoss
, and
J.
Piérard
,
Zeits. f. Krist.
88
,
210
(
1934
).
20.
J. H.
Van Vleck
,
Phys. Rev.
41
,
208
(
1932
). In this connection see reference 10 regarding the relation between coordination number and the sign of the crystalline field.
21.
R.
Hill
and
O. R.
Howell
,
Phil. Mag.
48
,
833
(
1924
).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.