Models Jellium

Figure 2. Sketch of an uncharged metal surface (simulated by the jellium model) covered by a macroscopic solvent layer, showing the components of the electric potential drop. 8%M is the surface potential of the metal modified by the solvent layer %s + 6%s is the surface potential of the solvent modified by the contact with the metal %s is the unmodified surface potential of the solvent layer at the external surface.

Schmidder and Henderson282 have studied several solvents and metals, using the jellium model for the metal and the MSA for the solution. Deviations of the Parsons-Zobel plot from linearity in the experimental results72,286-288 at the highest concentration have been attributed to the onset of ion-specific adsorption. However, data at other electrode charges... 

The C, values for Sb faces are noticeably lower than those for Bi. Just as for Bi, the closest-packed faces show the lowest values of C, [except Bi(lll) and Sb(lll)].28,152,153 This result is in good agreement with the theory428,429 based on the jellium model for the metal and the simple hard sphere model for the electrolyte solution. The adsorption of organic compounds at Sb and Bi single-crystal face electrodes28,152,726 shows that the surface activity of Bi(lll) and Sb(lll) is lower than for the other planes. Thus the anomalous position of Sb(lll) as well as Bi(lll) is probably caused by a more pronounced influence of the capacitance of the metal phase compared with other Sb and Bi faces28... 

Figure 5.7. Schematic representation of the definitions of work function O, chemical potential of electrons i, electrochemical potential of electrons or Fermi level p = EF, surface potential %, Galvani (or inner) potential

In this contribution we will deal with electron-electron correlation in solids and how to learn about these by means of inelastic X-ray scattering both in the regime of small and large momentum transfer. We will compare the predictions of simple models (free electron gas, jellium model) and more sophisticated ones (calculations using the self-energy influenced spectral weight function) to experimental results. In a last step, lattice effects will be included in the theoretical treatment. 

A simple metal like lithium or aluminum should best reveal the properties of the jellium model. To be sure, all long range order influence has been switched off, we measured S(q, co) of liquid A1 (T = 1000K). Figure 6 shows the result of a measurement for q = 1.5 a.u. together with theoretical calculations. 

Figure 11 shows the influence of correlation and lattice effects on the shape of n (k) for the case of lithium. The short dashed line shows (k) according to the jellium model with no electron-electron interaction included. Inclusion of correlation effects can be described using a model-w(k) ... 

Data taken in another mass range also showed the inertness of AlJ7. While it was not produced by reaction of larger clusters, of which there are few, it was, however, found to be unreactive over a wide oxygen concentration range. In general, our results support the electron droplet Jellium model, although some anomalies (for... 

With respect to the thermodynamic stability of metal clusters, there is a plethora of results which support the spherical Jellium model for the alkalis as well as for other metals, like copper. This appears to be the case for cluster reactivity, at least for etching reactions, where electronic structure dominates reactivity and minor anomalies are attributable to geometric influence. These cases, however, illustrate a situation where significant addition or diminution of valence electron density occurs via loss or gain of metal atoms. A small molecule, like carbon monoxide,... 

Since each atom in a f.c.c. array of purely metallic atoms is the same as every other atom (except at the surface), only a representative positive ion needs to be considered. Let it interact with a spherical portion (radius = R) of the electron gas which has a density of one electron per ion. This is called the jellium model. 

The latter effect can be understood within a simple model for metals the jellium model, which is based on the following ideas As is... 

Figure 3.4 Distribution of the electronic density in the jellium model the metal occupies the region x < 0. The unmarked curve is for an uncharged surface, the other two curves are for the indicated surface-charge densities. The distance along the x axis is measured in atomic units (a.u.), where 1 a.u. of length = 0.529 A.

In order to estimate the magnitude of the surface dipole potential and its variation with the charge density, we require a detailed model of the metal. Here we will explore the jellium model further, which was briefly mentioned in Chapter 3. 

Jellium is a good model for sp metals. This group of metals comprises, amongst others, the elements Hg, Cd, Zn, Tl, In, Ga and Pb, all of which are important as electrode materials in aqueous solutions. They possess wide conduction bands with delocalized electrons, which form a quasi-free-electron gas. The jellium model cannot be applied to transition metals, which have narrow d bands with a localized character. The sd metals Cu, Ag and Au are borderline cases. Cu and Ag have been successfully treated by a modified version of jellium [3], because their d orbitals are sufficiently low in energy. This is not possible for gold, whose characteristic color is caused by a d band near the Fermi level. 

Figure 17.3 Electronic density and charge distribution in the jellium model (schematic).

As with the jellium model, the main significance of these calculations lies in the physical insight that they give into the structure of the solution at the interface, and the origin of the Helmholtz capacity. 

To explain where the surface contribution to the work function comes from, we need a model for the electron distribution in the surface region of a metal. One of the simplest is the jellium model [18]. 

---