Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Analytic Boundary Terms for Arbitrary Crystal Geometries and Direct-Sum Evaluation of Madelung Constants in Triclinic Lattices

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Madelung boundary term made analytic for any triclinic crystal.

desk verdict New closed-form boundary term for triclinic Madelung sums is real and likely correct; the main soft spot is an unproven two-point finite-size correction that generates the claimed 10^-10 validation accuracy. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10041 v1 pith:QO4VNCRT submitted 2026-08-10 cond-mat.other physics.comp-ph

Yang He , Zhonghan Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.otherphysics.comp-ph
keywords Madelungconstantlatticesumconditionalconvergenceboundarytermtriclinicdirectsummationelectrostaticpotentialfinite-sizecorrection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Conditionally convergent Madelung lattice sums contain a shape-dependent boundary term whose analytic form has resisted solution for decades. This paper claims to close that problem: for arbitrary triclinic crystal geometries, the boundary term equals a sum over the crystal's parallelogram facets, where each facet contributes a term built from the gradient of the electrostatic potential of a uniformly charged parallelogram, given explicitly in closed form. The paper further claims that after subtracting this boundary term, the residual finite-size correction for a crystal of characteristic size $p$ decays as $(2p+1)^{-2}$. If these claims are right, direct summation of the lattice sum, without Ewald or Fourier transforms, becomes a practical and accurate route to Madelung constants even for low-symmetry triclinic crystals.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the parallelogram potential $\phi(a,b,r)$ and its gradient $g(a,b,r)$. Here $\phi$ is the electrostatic potential at field point $r$ of a uniformly charged parallelogram centered at the origin and spanned by vectors $2a$ and $2b$, written as a double integral over $t,\tau\in[-1,1]$. The paper evaluates this integral in closed form via Euler substitution, yielding $\phi=\phi_{\log}+\phi_{\text{atan}}$, where $\phi_{\log}$ sums logarithmic terms over the four vertices and $\phi_{\text{atan}}$ is a weighted sum of arctangents. The gradient $g$ decomposes into three algebraic vector terms $G_1,G_2,G_3$, a logarithmic term $L$, and an arctangent term $A$. The boundary term is then $\nu_b(r|s) = \frac{1}{2V}\sum_j \frac{r\cdot(a_j\times b_j)}{|a_j\times b_j|}\, r\cdot g(a_j,b_j,c_j)$, with $c_j$ pointing from the crystal center to each facet center. The key identity enabling the derivation is $\nabla_x(1/|x|) = \nabla_{c_j}(1/|t a_j + \tau b_j + c_j|)$, which turns the facet surface integral into a single closed-form potential calculation that is then differentiated.

What would settle it

For a fixed crystal shape, compute $D(p) = \nu(p|s) - \nu(p-1|s)$ after subtracting the analytic boundary term, and check whether $D(p)/[(2p+1)^{-2} - (2p-1)^{-2}]$ is constant as $p$ grows; if the ratio drifts or fails to converge, the assumed $(2p+1)^{-2}$ decay law is incomplete. Alternatively, compare the corrected direct sum against a high-accuracy Ewald result for a triclinic cell at $p=100$ and $p=200$; discrepancies above the claimed precision would falsify the correction scheme.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the shape-dependent boundary term $\nu_b(r|s)$ in the decomposition $\nu = \nu_{\text{pbc}} + \nu_b + \nu_{\text{corr}}$ is not an obstacle but a computable geometric object. After applying the divergence theorem, the boundary term is expressed as a sum over the $N_s$ parallelogram facets of the finite crystal, and each facet contribution is built from the gradient $g(a,b,r)=\nabla \phi(a,b,r)$ of the potential of a uniformly charged parallelogram. The parallelogram potential $\phi$ is evaluated in closed form as $\phi_{\log}+\phi_{\text{atan}}$ with explicit logarithmic and arctangent terms, and its gradient decomposes into the algebraic, logarithmic, and arctangent parts given in Eqs. (27)-(32). The paper also establishes that the remaining finite-size correction scales as $(2p+1)^{-2}$, so two consecutive crystal sizes suffice to extrapolate to the bulk limit. Numerical validation on NaCl, ZnS, and CaF$_2$ in an FCC Bravais lattice recovers the exact Madelung constants to about $10^{-10}$ at $p=60$, and the method is demonstrated on the triclinic wollastonite lattice.

Load-bearing premise

The extrapolation to the bulk relies on the finite-size correction after subtracting the boundary term being exactly $C/(2p+1)^2$, so that fitting $C$ from two consecutive crystal sizes removes all remaining error; if other correction terms of comparable or larger order exist, the reported $10^{-10}$ agreement would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any finite crystal of exact shape and size, the shape-dependent part of the Madelung sum is computed exactly from facet geometry, so bulk Madelung constants can be extracted from direct sums without Ewald or Fourier methods.
  • The boundary-term formula works for both regular and irregular or composite crystal shapes; regular and irregular shapes yield consistent bulk energies after correction, confirming the separation of boundary and finite-size effects.
  • The $(2p+1)^{-2}$ decay law for the residual correction means that direct summation with two or three crystal sizes gives a systematic extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit.
  • The triclinic wollastonite application shows the method is practical for low-symmetry lattices: the computed per-ion electrostatic energies favor the triclinic phase over the cubic perovskite structure at the same density.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: because the boundary term is expressed through facet potentials, the same $\phi$ and $g$ formulas could be reused as geometric building blocks in force calculations, potentially lowering the cost of direct summations for finite nanocrystals beyond what the paper demonstrates.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's recovery of Rayleigh's $2\pi$ and $2\pi/3$ geometric factors suggests the parallelogram-potential machinery may transfer to effective-medium problems, such as conductivity, heat conduction, and refractive index, where the same conditional lattice sums appear.
  • Editorial inference: the $(2p+1)^{-2}$ correction law is verified numerically but not proven; if proven, the method's error estimate would become rigorous, and the same scaling could plausibly apply to other inverse-distance lattice sums beyond electrostatics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives a closed-form analytic expression for the shape-dependent boundary term ν_b(r|s) in finite Coulomb lattice sums, Eq. (8), for triclinic Bravais lattices with parallelogram-faced exact crystal shapes. The boundary term is expressed as a sum over facets of the gradient of the electrostatic potential of a uniformly charged parallelogram, with explicit formulas for φ and g in Eqs. (20)–(32). The manuscript further asserts that the residual finite-size correction decays as (2p+1)^{-2}, and uses a fitted coefficient to correct direct sums. Numerical validation is reported for NaCl, ZnS, and CaF2 in regular and irregular shapes, and the method is applied to triclinic wollastonite.

Significance. If the analytic formula is correct, it resolves a long-standing gap in lattice-sum theory: shape-dependent boundary terms are usually expressed only as surface integrals. The derivation is explicit, self-contained given the prior decomposition of Ref. 15, and consistent with known limits: Eq. (37) recovers the rectangular-prism case and Sec. IV reproduces Rayleigh’s geometric factors 2π and 2π/3. The availability of code and data on GitHub is a strength. The central weakness is that the numerical validation’s claimed high accuracy is produced by an unproven, fitted finite-size correction, so the verification of the analytic formula is weaker than the tables suggest. Revision is required to make the validation load-bearing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (42), Tables II–III] The claimed (2p+1)^{-2} decay of the finite-size correction is asserted without derivation. The text says the difference ν(r,p|s)−ν(r,p−1|s) scales as C[(2p+1)^{-2}−(2p−1)^{-2}], from which C is estimated and subtracted as C/(2p+1)^2, but no proof or independent check of this leading-order law is given. Without the correction, the p=60 NaCl value in Table II is ν−ν_b = 1.747580 versus the exact 1.74756459463318, an error of about 1.5×10^{-5}; the reported 1.1×10^{-10} error is entirely produced by the fitted two-point extrapolation. Because the abstract states that this decay is “demonstrated,” the gap is load-bearing. Please supply a derivation of the asymptotic correction or an independent verification (e.g., higher-order Richardson fits or a comparison with Ewald values at several p), and report uncorrected residuals alongside corrected ones.
  2. [Section V, Table IV] The wollastonite electrostatic energies are quoted to six digits with no error estimate, yet they are used to conclude that the cubic-to-triclinic transition is energetically favored. A convergence study over p (e.g., p=10, 20, 40) and over regular/irregular shapes, or explicit error bars, is needed to support the claimed six-digit accuracy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, abstract] The phrase “arbitrary crystal geometries” is broader than what is actually treated: the derivation applies to the family of centrosymmetric, parallelogram-faced exact shapes defined in Section II (regular shapes plus their composite unions). Please state the scope precisely.
  2. [Appendix B, after Eq. (B18)] The appendix’s text reads “where the logarithmic and arctangent contributions are given, respectively, by and φ_atan”; the explicit expression for φ_log appears to be missing. The formulas are present in the main text, but the appendix should be self-contained.
  3. [Section II, Eq. (6), and Appendix B, Eq. (B14)] The symbol c is used both for the facet-center vector c_j in Eq. (6) and for the intermediate vector c = r ± a in Eq. (B14), which is confusing. Rename one of the two.
  4. [Section V, Tables II–III] The tables would be clearer if the absolute error after correction were reported directly; the current use of ϵ and the √3/2 factor for ZnS is opaque and makes the validation harder to check.
  5. [References] Reference [46] is an online database entry with only an access date; the journal’s reference style should include the specific structure determination and, if possible, a DOI.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central analytic boundary-term derivation is self-contained and the fitted finite-size extrapolation is not a by-construction prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Equation (8) follows from the prior exact-shape decomposition via the divergence theorem and facet parameterization, and the parallelogram potential phi in Eqs. (20)-(32) is obtained by explicit Euler-substitution integration in Appendices A and B. No fitted parameter enters the closed-form boundary term itself. The rectangular-prism limit in Eq. (37) matches earlier independent derivations, and the Rayleigh limit reproduces known geometric factors, providing external consistency checks. The only numerical device that could look circular is the (2p+1)^-2 finite-size correction in Section V, where C is inferred from consecutive-size differences and then subtracted. However, this is a convergence-acceleration extrapolation, not a by-construction identity: the external exact Madelung constants are not used to determine C, and the corrected values would deviate if the assumed decay law were wrong. Whether the decay law is adequately demonstrated is a rigor/correctness concern, not a circularity one. The self-citations to Refs. [14,15,17] supply the pre-existing exact-shape decomposition used as a starting point, not the new analytic boundary-term result, so they are not load-bearing in a circular way.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The derivation of the boundary term is self-contained given standard calculus, but it leans on the exact-shape decomposition from the authors' earlier papers (refs 14, 15, 17) and on an empirically fitted finite-size correction coefficient C. The fitted C is used only to accelerate convergence, not to fix the boundary-term formula.

free parameters (1)
  • C (finite-size correction coefficient) = not quoted; estimated from ν(p)-ν(p-1)
    Section V: the correction C/(2p+1)^2 is obtained by assuming the leading residual scales as C[(2p+1)^{-2}-(2p-1)^{-2}], fitting C to two consecutive sizes. This is a data-fitted parameter used to accelerate convergence, not part of the boundary-term formula.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The finite-crystal Coulomb sum decomposes as ν_pbc + ν_b + ν_corr with ν_b given by the volume integral in Eq. (3).
    Taken from prior work by the same authors (refs 14, 15, 17); not re-derived here, but it is the foundation that makes the facet-surface formula meaningful.
  • domain assumption The exact shape and size parameterization (centrosymmetric, odd dimensions, coprime aspect ratios) preserves self-similar scaling so that ν_b is p-independent.
    Section II; the definition of exact shape is assumed from refs 14 and 15; the p-independence of ν_b relies on this parameterization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytic Boundary Terms for Arbitrary Crystal Geometries and Direct-Sum Evaluation of Madelung Constants in Triclinic Lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QO4VNCRT

@misc{pith2026260810041,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytic Boundary Terms for Arbitrary Crystal Geometries and Direct-Sum Evaluation of Madelung Constants in Triclinic Lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QO4VNCRT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10041}
}
abstract

The direct-sum evaluation of Madelung constants is complicated by the conditional convergence of lattice sums, which gives rise to a shape-dependent boundary term. In this work, we present, for the first time, a closed-form analytic expression for this boundary term that is valid for arbitrary crystal geometries. For general triclinic lattices, this boundary term maps exactly onto the electrostatic potential generated by a set of uniformly charged parallelograms. In addition, we demonstrate that the residual finite-size correction for a crystal of characteristic size $p$ decays as $(2p+1)^{-2}$. Building on these results, we develop a robust direct-sum method for the accurate computation of Madelung constants in arbitrary triclinic lattices and validate its effectiveness through explicit calculations on representative Bravais lattices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10041 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Cross sections of two finite crystals in a triclinic lattice (prim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Cylindrical or spherical obstacles of radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Electrostatic potentials of (left) a uniformly charged straight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Geometrically, √ Krepresents the perpendicular distance from the pointrto the plane spanned bye a ande b. VIII. APPENDIX B: ELECTROSTA TIC POTENTIALS OF UNIFORMLY CHARGED GEOMETRIES To derive the electrostatic potential of a uniformly charged line segment, we first align the segment of lengthlwith the 8 (0, 0, 0) ( l, 0, 0) (x,y, 0) (0, 0, 0) r = (x,y,z )...

    work page

  2. [2]

    M. P. Allen and D. J. Tildesley,Computer Simulation of Liq- uids, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    (Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, 2023)

    Daan Frenkel and Berend Smit,Understanding Molecular Sim- ulation: From Algorithms to Applications, 3rd ed. (Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, 2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    John Singleton,Band Theory and Electronic Properties of Solids, 1st ed., Oxford Master Series in Condensed Matter Physics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001) p. 222

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    Simulation and under- standing of atomic and molecular quantum crystals,

    Claudio Cazorla and Jordi Boronat, “Simulation and under- standing of atomic and molecular quantum crystals,” Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Die electrostatische untersuchung des kristallgitters,

    Erwin Madelung, “Die electrostatische untersuchung des kristallgitters,” Physikalische Zeitschrift19, 524–533 (1918)

    work page 1918

  7. [7]

    Evaluation of optical and electrostatic lattice po- tentials,

    P. P. Ewald, “Evaluation of optical and electrostatic lattice po- tentials,” Ann. Phys. Leipzig64, 253–287 (1921)

    1921

  8. [8]

    Max Born and Kun Huang,Dynamical Theory of Crystal Lat- tices(Oxford University Press, London, 1954)

    work page 1954

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    The electrostatic potential in a finite ionic crystal,

    A. Redlack and J. Grindlay, “The electrostatic potential in a finite ionic crystal,” Canad. J. Phys.50, 2815–2825 (1972)

    1972

  2. [10]

    Coulombic potential lattice sums,

    A. Redlack and J. Grindlay, “Coulombic potential lattice sums,” J Phys. Chem. Solids36, 73–82 (1975)

    1975

  3. [11]

    Simulation of electrostatic systems in periodic boundary conditions. i. lattice sums and dielectric constants,

    S. W. de Leeuw, J. W. Perram, and E. R. Smith, “Simulation of electrostatic systems in periodic boundary conditions. i. lattice sums and dielectric constants,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A Math. Phys. Sci.373, 27–56 (1980)

    1980

  4. [12]

    Electrostatic energy in ionic crystals,

    E. R. Smith, “Electrostatic energy in ionic crystals,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A Math. Phys. Sci.375, 475 (1981)

    1981

  5. [13]

    Communication: On the origin of the surface term in the ewald formula,

    V . Ballenegger, “Communication: On the origin of the surface term in the ewald formula,” J. Chem. Phys.140, 161102 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    thesis, Jilin University (2017), pages 139- 140

    Cong Pan,A study on electrostatics algorithms in molecular simulations, Ph.D. thesis, Jilin University (2017), pages 139- 140

    2017

  7. [15]

    The madelung prob- lem of finite crystals,

    Yihao Zhao, Yang He, and Zhonghan Hu, “The madelung prob- lem of finite crystals,” Journal of Chemical Theory and Compu- tation22, 2790–2798 (2026)

    2026

  8. [16]

    The finite coulomb lattice sum: A resolution of conditional convergence through exact shape and size,

    Yang He and Zhonghan Hu, “The finite coulomb lattice sum: A resolution of conditional convergence through exact shape and size,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters17, 7501–7510 (2026)

    2026

  9. [17]

    Infinite boundary terms of ewald sums and pair- wise interactions for electrostatics in bulk and at interfaces,

    Zhonghan Hu, “Infinite boundary terms of ewald sums and pair- wise interactions for electrostatics in bulk and at interfaces,” J. Chem. Theory Comput.10, 5254–5264 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Infinite boundary terms and pairwise interactions: A unified framework for periodic coulomb systems,

    Yihao Zhao and Zhonghan Hu, “Infinite boundary terms and pairwise interactions: A unified framework for periodic coulomb systems,” Journal of Chemical Theory and Compu- tation21, 5916–5927 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    On the influence of obstacles arranged in rect- angular order upon the properties of a medium,

    Lord Rayleigh, “On the influence of obstacles arranged in rect- angular order upon the properties of a medium,” Phil. Mag. Ser. 534, 481–502 (1892)

  12. [20]

    Particle mesh ewald: An n log(n) method for ewald sums in large systems,

    Tom Darden, Darrin York, and Lee Pedersen, “Particle mesh ewald: An n log(n) method for ewald sums in large systems,” J. Chem. Phys.98, 10089–10092 (1993)

    1993

  13. [21]

    A smooth particle mesh ewald method,

    Ulrich Essmann, Lalith Perera, Max L. Berkowitz, Tom Dar- den, Hsing Lee, and Lee G. Pedersen, “A smooth particle mesh ewald method,” J. Chem. Phys.103, 8577–8593 (1995)

    1995

  14. [22]

    Accelerating molecular dynamics simu- lations using fast ewald summation with prolates,

    Jiuyang Liang, Libin Lu, Alex Barnett, Leslie Greengard, and Shidong Jiang, “Accelerating molecular dynamics simu- lations using fast ewald summation with prolates,” (2025), arXiv:2505.09727

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    An adaptive fast algorithm for periodic coulomb lattice sums in arbitrary unit cells,

    Xuanzhao Gao, Leslie Greengard, and Shidong Jiang, “An adaptive fast algorithm for periodic coulomb lattice sums in arbitrary unit cells,” arXiv preprint (2026), submitted 26 Jun 2026, published 30 Jun 2026, arXiv:2606.28608 [math.NA]

    2026 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A symmetry-preserving mean field theory for electrostatics at interfaces,

    Zhonghan Hu, “A symmetry-preserving mean field theory for electrostatics at interfaces,” Chem. Commun.50, 14397–14400 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    The symmetry-preserving mean field condi- tion for electrostatic correlations in bulk,

    Zhonghan Hu, “The symmetry-preserving mean field condi- tion for electrostatic correlations in bulk,” J. Chem. Phys.156, 034111 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    A screening con- dition imposed stochastic approximation for long-range electro- static correlations,

    Weihang Gao, Zhonghan Hu, and Zhenli Xu, “A screening con- dition imposed stochastic approximation for long-range electro- static correlations,” J. Chem. Theory Comput.19, 4822–4827 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Symmetry-preserving random batch ewald method for constant-potential simulation of electrochemical systems,

    Weihang Gao, Qi Zhou, Qianru Zhang, and Zhenli Xu, “Symmetry-preserving random batch ewald method for constant-potential simulation of electrochemical systems,” Journal of Computational Physics555, 114789 (2026)

    2026

  20. [28]

    Coulomb potential inside a large finite crystal,

    L N Kantorovich and I I Tupitsyn, “Coulomb potential inside a large finite crystal,” J. Phys.: Cond. Matter11, 6159 (1999)

    1999

  21. [29]

    Electrostatic potentials in systems periodic in one, two, and three dimensions,

    E. R. Smith, “Electrostatic potentials in systems periodic in one, two, and three dimensions,” J. Chem. Phys.128, 174104 (2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    Http://oeis.org/A085469, Madelung Constant for NaCl Struc- ture, The Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences

  23. [31]

    Http://oeis.org/A182566, Madelung Constant for ZnS Struc- ture, The Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences

  24. [32]

    On the calculation of lattice sums,

    B. R. A. Nijboer and F. W. De Wette, “On the calculation of lattice sums,” Physica23, 309–321 (1957)

    1957

  25. [33]

    Convergence of lattice sums and madelung’s constant,

    David Borwein, Jonathan M. Borwein, and Keith F. Tay- lor, “Convergence of lattice sums and madelung’s constant,” J. Math. Phys.26, 2999–3009 (1985)

    1985

  26. [34]

    Accuracy and efficiency of the particle mesh ewald method,

    Henrik G. Petersen, “Accuracy and efficiency of the particle mesh ewald method,” J. Chem. Phys.103, 3668–3679 (1995)

    1995

  27. [35]

    A fast algorithm for particle simulations,

    Leslie Greengard and Vladimir Rokhlin, “A fast algorithm for particle simulations,” J. Comput. Phys.73, 325–348 (1987)

    1987

  28. [36]

    Leslie Greengard,The Rapid Evaluation of Potential Fields in Particle Systems(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988)

    1988

  29. [37]

    A fast multi- pole method for periodic systems with arbitrary unit cell ge- ometries,

    Konstantin N Kudin and Gustavo E Scuseria, “A fast multi- pole method for periodic systems with arbitrary unit cell ge- ometries,” Chem. Phys. Lett.283, 61–68 (1998)

    1998

  30. [38]

    On the stability of certain heteropolar crystals,

    H. M. Evjen, “On the stability of certain heteropolar crystals,” Phys. Rev.39, 675–687 (1932)

    1932

  31. [39]

    Simple calculation of madelung con- stants,

    Walter A. Harrison, “Simple calculation of madelung con- stants,” Phys. Rev. B73, 212103 (2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    Electrostatic potentials using direct-lattice summations,

    V . R. Marathe, S. Lauer, and A. X. Trautwein, “Electrostatic potentials using direct-lattice summations,” Phys. Rev. B27, 5162–5165 (1983)

    1983

  33. [41]

    Madelung fields from optimized point charges for ab initio cluster model calcu- lations on ionic systems,

    C. Sousa, J. Casanovas, J. Rubio, and F. Illas, “Madelung fields from optimized point charges for ab initio cluster model calcu- lations on ionic systems,” Journal of Computational Chemistry 14, 680–684 (1993)

    1993

  34. [42]

    Determin- ing point charge arrays that produce accurate ionic crystal fields for atomic cluster calculations,

    S. E. Derenzo, M. K. Klintenberg, and M. J. Weber, “Determin- ing point charge arrays that produce accurate ionic crystal fields for atomic cluster calculations,” Journal of Chemical Physics 112, 2074–2081 (2000)

    2000

  35. [43]

    Fast calculation of the electrostatic potential in ionic crystals by direct summation method,

    A. Gell ´e and M.-B. Lepetit, “Fast calculation of the electrostatic potential in ionic crystals by direct summation method,” Journal of Chemical Physics128, 244716 (2008)

    2008

  36. [44]

    Clifford boundary conditions: A simple direct-sum evaluation of madelung con- stants,

    Nicolas Tavernier, Gian Luigi Bendazzoli, V ´eronique Brumas, Stefano Evangelisti, and J. A. Berger, “Clifford boundary conditions: A simple direct-sum evaluation of madelung con- stants,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters11, 7090– 7095 (2020). 11

    2020

  37. [45]

    Clifford boundary conditions for periodic sys- tems: the madelung constant of cubic crystals in 1, 2 and 3 dimensions,

    N. Tavernier, G. L. Bendazzoli, V . Brumas, S. Evangelisti, and T. Leininger, “Clifford boundary conditions for periodic sys- tems: the madelung constant of cubic crystals in 1, 2 and 3 dimensions,” Theoretical Chemistry Accounts140, 106 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    The crystal structures of wol- lastonite and pectolite,

    M. J. Buerger and C. T. Prewitt, “The crystal structures of wol- lastonite and pectolite,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.47, 1884–1888 (1961)

    1961

  39. [47]

    Structure of Wollastonite (CaSiO 3) Date of Access: Jun 18,

  40. [49]

    The complete code and data has been uploaded to github.com/zhonghanhu1981/mdcode/triclinic.tar.gz

  41. [2026]

    http://www.aflow.org/p/89U5/

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.