Big Chemical Encyclopedia

Chemical substances, components, reactions, process design ...

Articles Figures Tables About

Perturbation scheme

A prime advantage of the perturbational approach is that the individual terms are evaluated explicitly, rather than as the difference between very much larger quantities as is true of supermolecule approaches. These SAPT terms are free of basis set superposition error. More important, each term corresponds to a well-defined physical phenomenon, which permits an insightful analysis. Each term can be evaluated using a different basis set, most appropriate for that particular component. For example, dispersion requires orbitals of high angular momentum whereas electrostatics can usually be derived with only a moderate basis set. [Pg.37]

It is possible to express the second-order induction energy in terms of the multipole moments of any small molecules involved and their static polarizability tensors - but further simplification is difficult for a pair of polyatomic subunits. A similar analysis permits the dispersion to be placed within the context of dynamic polarizabilities. In the case of a pair [Pg.37]

Chalasinski and Szczesniak have provided a means of decomposing the correlation contribution to the interaction energy into four separate terms. Their philosophy takes the electron exchange operator as a second perturbation in the spirit of many-body perturbation theory, with molecular interaction as the first perturbation in their intermolecular Mpller-Plesset perturbation theory (IMPPT). At the level of second order of the correlation operator, they obtain a number of separate terms. The first is the dispersion energy, e [Pg.38]

Cybulski et al. furnish an example of the sensitivity of the various perturbation components of the H-bond energy to the choice of basis set. In their study of the dimer of HF, 6-3IG refers to a standard split-valence set, with polarization functions. GD is similar in character but was designed to specifically address the dispersion energy more accurately. The S2 set was proposed by Sadlej to produce reliable dipole moments and polarizabilities of the monomers, augmented by extended polarization functions (/on F d on H). Well- [Pg.38]

It might be noted finally that a perturbational approach offers the possibility of a rigorous definition of nonadditive terms within clusters . Such unambiguous definitions are useful in understanding cooperativity, that is, the manner in which one molecule can influence the interaction between two others. [Pg.39]


It is well noted that, in contiast to the two-state equation [see Eq. (26)], Eq. (25) contains an additional, nonlinear term. This nonlinear term enforces a perturbative scheme in order to solve the required x-matrix elements. [Pg.697]

The second approach is addressed to elaborate methods able to derive from accurate calculations the points of interest for the interpretation The strategy, in general, consists in the adoption of a simpler model (the mathematical aspects of the model are again concerned) and the task consists in reducing the information coming from the full in-depth calculation (not the the numerical values of observables and other statutory quantities alone) to the level of the simpler model. For example accurate calculations may be reduced at the level of a simple VB theory (Robb, Hiberty) or of a simple MO perturbation scheme (Bernardi) making more transparent the interpretation. [Pg.10]

The majority of the molecular-scale information concerning the effects of structure and local chemistry on proton dissociation and separation in PEM fragments alluded to previously " were initially determined using HE theory and split valence local basis sets. Refinements to the equilibrium configurations were made using both Mailer-Plesset (MP) perturbation schemes and hybrid density functional theory (described below). [Pg.402]

However, it remains unknown how heterogeneities affect the phase transition itself. In fact, the perturbation scheme used to derive Eq. (4.52) breaks down near the spinodal point. We can well expect that domains of a shrunken (or swollen) phase are created and pinned around heterogeneities with higher (or lower) crosslink densities. [Pg.92]

Although shear rate effects are more pronounced in good solvents, the intrinsic viscosity decreases with shear rate even in 0-solvents, where excluded volume is zero (317,318). The Zimm model employs the hydrodynamic interaction coefficients in the mean equilibrium configuration for all shear rates, despite the fact that the mean segment spacings change with coil deformation. Fixman has allowed the interaction matrix to vary in an appropriate way with coil deformation (334). The initial departure from [ ]0 was calculated by a perturbation scheme, and a decrease with increasing shear rate in 0-systems was predicted to take place in the vicinity of / = 1. [Pg.139]

Note that the binary HMSA [60] scheme gives the solute-solvent radial distribution function only in a limited range of solute-solvent size ratio. It fails to provide a proper description for such a large variation in size. Thus, here the solute-solvent radial distribution function has been calculated by employing the well-known Weeks-Chandler-Anderson (WCA) perturbation scheme [118], which requires the solution of the Percus-Yevick equation for the binary mixtures [119]. [Pg.157]

In the previous chapters we have established a perturbative scheme, which in principle allows for a calculation of interaction effects to any order desired. We want to examine here whether this theory is indeed valid in all the parameter space of interest. We first consider quantities involving only a few chains, to be treated by the duster expansion as derived in Chap. 4. [Pg.99]

Rigorous perturbational treatments of the interaction between two molecules belong to the field of intermolecular forces, and I shall not attempt a comprehensive review, since the topic has been reviewed by Stamper129 in the previous volume in this series. However, several authors have devised perturbation schemes with a view to their application in problems of reactivity, which is a departure from conventional theory of intermolecular forces, where the possibility of making and breaking of bonds is usually excluded, on the reasonable grounds that the problem is quite hard enough anyway. [Pg.68]

Polarizability.—The hamiltonian for a molecule in a uniform electric field is given by H—ft° +JT(1), where i/(1)= — paF, F being the electric field vector. Developing a normal Rayleigh-Schrodinger perturbation scheme, the second-order contribution to the energy is... [Pg.89]

CASPT2 excitation energies are also very similar to the DDCI energies obtained with the all electron basis sets. The perturbative scheme gives energies which are about 0.2 eV lower. Hence we conclude that the present choice ofECP and basis set are sufficient to compute excitation energies ofF centers in the MgO (100) surface. [Pg.238]

It requires little equipment (these are back of an envelope calculations) and a minimum of theoretical knowledge (we only need to learn three perturbation schemes). [Pg.18]

For the moment, suffice it to say that the two-orbital perturbation schemes give the orbital energies and the sign of the MO coefficients in the supermolecule (A B) with a reasonable degree of precision. However, three-orbital perturbations are needed to determine the relative sizes of the coefficients. [Pg.43]

Figure 6.9 A perturbation scheme showing the orbitals of the incipient Nu - -C bond. Figure 6.9 A perturbation scheme showing the orbitals of the incipient Nu - -C bond.
This result is obvious in diatomics compare the perturbation schemes giving the it MOs of ethylene and formaldehyde. However, the rule is valid only if X and the replaced atom give rise to bonds of similar energy. If we replace, for example, O by S, the occupied MOs are indeed raised, but the antibonding MOs may be lowered because /Jcs is much smaller than /Jco. [Pg.213]

If we introduce a perturbative scheme and we limit ourselves to the first order, an approximate but effective way to obtain such quantities is represented by the LR scheme as shown in the following equations. [Pg.120]

Contrary to the previously described supermolecular approach, perturbation theory treatment allows for the partition of the interaction energy into physically interpretable components. The most frequently used method for this purpose is symmetry-adapted perturbation theory (SAPT) [13]. More recently, great effort has also been invested in the development of DFT-SAPT [14-16], In the present contribution, we use the variational-perturbational scheme [17-20], In this approach, the intermolecular interaction energy components are determined based on the wave functions of the subsystems evaluated in the dimer-centered basis set. Thus, both interaction energy and its components are BSSE-free. More details about this scheme can be found elsewhere [21-23]. The total intermolecular interaction energy at the MP2 level of theory can be expressed as follows ... [Pg.389]

When a tunneling calculation is undertaken, many simplifications render the task easier than a complete transport calculation such as the one of [32]. Let us take the formulation by Caroli et al. [16] using the change induced by the vibration in the spectral function of the lead. In this description, the current and thus the conductance are proportional to the density of states (spectral function) of the leads (here tip and substrate). This is tantamount to using some perturbational scheme on the electron transmission amplitude between tip and substrate. This is what Bardeen s transfer Hamiltonian achieves. The main advantage of this approximation is that one can use the electronic structure calculated by some standard way, for example plane-wave codes, and use perturbation theory to account for the inelastic effect. In [33], a careful description of the Bardeen approximation in the context of inelastic tunneling is given, and how the equivalent of Tersoff and Hamann theory [34,35] of the STM is obtained in the inelastic case. [Pg.226]

In section 4, the perturbation scheme is presented and the results are checked against current NRQED calculations [1] up to the order a6. [Pg.739]

Compared to the SRS theory, the perturbation scheme proposed by Murrell and Shaw91, and independently by Musher and Amos92 introduces only a slight complication. As shown by Jeziorski and Kolos88 the corresponding symmetryforcing operators are given by,... [Pg.20]


See other pages where Perturbation scheme is mentioned: [Pg.93]    [Pg.155]    [Pg.193]    [Pg.308]    [Pg.327]    [Pg.163]    [Pg.168]    [Pg.9]    [Pg.86]    [Pg.384]    [Pg.93]    [Pg.76]    [Pg.372]    [Pg.194]    [Pg.176]    [Pg.501]    [Pg.33]    [Pg.18]    [Pg.141]    [Pg.179]    [Pg.57]    [Pg.230]    [Pg.46]    [Pg.49]    [Pg.213]    [Pg.222]    [Pg.486]    [Pg.78]    [Pg.20]    [Pg.21]    [Pg.24]   


SEARCH



Decomposition perturbation schemes

Iterative scheme of the symmetry adapted perturbation theory

Mpller Plesset perturbation theory interaction schemes

The Variational DKH Scheme for Perturbing Potentials

© 2024 chempedia.info