Repulsive coupling between

The effects of electric fields on monolayer domains graphically illustrates the repulsion between neighboring domains [236,237]. A model by Stone and McConnell for the hydrodynamic coupling between the monolayer and the subphase produces predictions of the rate of shape transitions [115,238]. 

As has been noticed by Gelbart and Gelbart [7], the predominant orientational interaction in nematics results from the isotropic dispersion attraction modulated by the anisotropic molecular hard-core. The anisotropy of this effective potential comes from that of the asymmetric molecular shape. The coupling between the isotropic attraction and the anisotropic hard-core repulsion is represented by the effective potential... 

On the basis of this description, a relationship between the two lengths 8 and K can be established. Different 5 values are obtained by gradually increasing the amount of micelles and fitting the force profiles. The evolution of 5 as a function of the calculated Debye length is plotted in Fig. 2.8. The thickness 5 increases linearly with The inherent coupling between depletion and doublelayer forces is reflected by this empirical linear relationship which is a consequence of the electrostatic repulsion between droplets and micelles. The thickness 5 may be conceptually defined as a distance of closer approach between droplets and micelles and thus may be empirically obtained by writing ... 

To determine the coupling work between solute and solvent, it is convenient to decompose AGsol into separate, more manageable terms, which typically involve the separation between electrostatic and nonelectrostatic contributions. The former accounts for the work required to assemble the charge distribution of the solute in solution, while the latter is typically used to account for dispersion and repulsion interactions between solute and solvent molecules, as well as for cavitation, i.e. the work required to create the cavity that accommodates the solute. 

Support to these assumptions has recently come from the analysis of the coupling between electrostatic and dispersion-repulsion contributions to the solvation of a series of neutral solutes in different solvents [31]. It has been found that the explicit inclusion of both electrostatic and dispersion-repulsion forces have little effect on both the electrostatic component of the solvation free energy and the induced dipole moment, as can be noted from inspection of the data reported in Table 3.1. These results therefore support the separate calculation of electrostatic and dispersion-repulsion components of the solvation free energy, as generally adopted in QM-SCRF continuum models. 

Table 3.1 Electrostatic contribution (Ge/e kcal moC1) to the solvation free energy and dipole moment (p Debye) for a series of representative neutral compounds in water (determined from QM-SCRF B3LYP/ aug-cc-pVDZ calculations with and without coupling between electrostatic and dispersion-repulsion components...

---