Comparison function evaluations, considerations

The comparison of "numbers of reactive bonds" crudely measures similarity. A more appropriate but complex approach would evaluate similarity in terms of known functional groups or discovered reactive substructures shared or not shared by two reactions. Both these approaches to validity estimation are limited because they are entirely based on structure. The expert will use other factors, including theoretical considerations, to refine validity. 

The comparison of the Xj, thermodynamic data with the corresponding MXn x data also appears to suggest a viable method for making predictions from the dimensional model. In every case tested except the Xy species, the MX -i line lies close to the points for the Xj, polymers. We believe that the disparity In the Xy case Is probably due to the lack of enough MX5(g) data points (Fig. 1). Note In Table I that for every species tested except the MXg molecules the Oq values at 1000 K lie close to 20. Interestingly, If we artificially Increase the value for the MX5 from 17.9 to 20, the discrepancy between the two Xy points and the MX5 line Is reduced considerably (Fig. 5). Ultimately we plan to numerically evaluate the configuration Integral with various potential functions for homonuclear clusters. 

The above example illustrates how useful reactivity inherent in phosphonium salt ILs in comparison to nitrogen-based systems can be unraveled through reaction screening. We have engaged in a more systematic attempt to evaluate potential unique applications for phosphonium salt ILs. Our consideration of the nature and reactivity of phosphonium-based salts as catalysts or media for organic reactions, which differs or is not possible with nitrogen-based systems, led us to speculate that they might function as Lewis acids [15]. It was envisioned that due to the... 

The task of design evaluation is to separate several design edtemadves for the final selection of the design. Cost analysis, functionality comparison, and rehabihty analysis are all considerations. Based on the predefined criteria, an alternative is selected. At this point the design is ready for production. 

Concepts of acidity and basicity are, in practice, defined and evaluated by their utility. Since overly formd definitions can be restrictive the concepts of acidity evolve towaids more comprehensive definitions. For example the Lewis definition includes the Broensted definition simply regarding the proton as an electron acceptor. Because the interaction of Broensted acids and bases in solutions involves a common process, protic transfer, scales of acidity can be established, for example the Hammett [1] acidity function. For Lewis acid-base interaction there is no common process to provide a unique basis for comparisons of acid strength. Experimentally, the strength of a Lewis acid depends upon the particular Lewis base. The classification of acids and bases as hard or soft in the principle of hard and soft acids and bases (HSAB principle) clarifies the interactions of Lewis acids and bases [2a]. Strong interactions occur between hard acid and hard base, or between soft acid and soft base, hi the hard-hard interaction there is a considerable electrostatic contribution to bonding and in the soft-soft interaction there is a major covalent contribution to bonding. The use of density functional analysis has clarified the concepts of hardness and softness and an empirical ranking of Lewis acids, based on local hardness is, proposed [2c]. 

Recently reported systematic calculations for small molecular clusters show that CCSD(T) calculations using very large basis sets provide accurate inter-molecular interaction energies [6,7]. The CCSD(T)-level electron correlation correction is highly computationally demanding. The CPU time for a CCSD(T) calculation is proportional to the seventh power of the number of basis functions. In early calculations, the MP2 method was used for the evaluation of the interactions of aromatic molecules. The CPU time for an MP2 calculation is proportional to the fifth power of the munber of basis functions. However, recently reported CCSD(T) calculations of the benzene dimer show that the MP2 method overestimates the attraction considerably compared with the more reliable CCSD(T) calculations [9,11]. A comparison of HP, MP2 and CCSD(T) calculations for the benzene dimer is shown in Fig. 3. The MP2 calculation substantially overestimates the attraction com-... 

In comparison, we must perform a thermokinetic analysis of the interpretive data, extracted with unreliable accuracy [21,44] from measured q and T curves of non-isothermal reactions by the simultaneous evaluation of the part of the reaction rate function (. . cp . .), of the rate coefficient k(J) and of the reaction enthalpy AHx(T)- This analytical method is therefore considerably far more prone to error [44]. As a rule, the elaboration of the precise kinetics of complex chemical conversimis based on non-isothermal investigation cannot be performed. 

---