SCF-limit

Analyte solubility in an SCF (limited for higher-MW and polar compounds)... 

As for the difference of about 0.4 kcal/mol between the old-style and new-style SCF extrapolations in Wlh and W1 theories, comparison with the W2h SCF limits clearly suggests the new-style extrapolation to be the more reliable one. (The two extrapolations yield basically the same result in W2h.) This should not be seen as an indication that the Eoo + A/L5 formula is somehow better founded theoretically, but rather as an example of why reliance on (aug-)cc-pVDZ data should be avoided if at all possible. Users who prefer the geometric extrapolation for the SCF component could consider carrying out a direct SCF calculation in the extra large (i.e. V5Z) basis set and applying the Eoo + A/BL extrapolation to the medium , large , and extra large SCF data. 

The Wlc total atomization energy at 0 K of aniline, 1468.7 kcal/mol, is in satisfying agreement with the value obtained from heats of formation in the NIST WebBook 39), 1467.7 0.7 kcal/mol. (Most of the uncertainty derives from the heat of vaporization of graphite.) The various contributions to this result are (in kcal/mol) SCF limit 1144.4, valence CCSD correlation energy limit 359.0, connected triple excitations 31.7, inner shell correlation 7.6, scalar relativistic effects -1.2, atomic spin-orbit coupling -0.5 kcal/mol. Extrapolations account for 0.6, 12.1, and 2.5 kcal/mol, respectively, out of the three first contributions. 

First, some large basis set SCF calculations of the infrared and Raman intensities in H2O, NHj and CH4 will be given. The choice of basis set is one of computational chemistry s perennial problems. For some particularly simple systems, it is possible to draw some conclusions from symmetry. For example, in an atom with occupied s and p orbitals, the dipole polarizability cannot be obtained reliably without d functions, and the quadrupole polarizability would require f functions. Similarly in a linear molecule with occupied geometric derivative of the wavefunction in the same linear molecule would also require d orbitals. However, these arguments cannot be absolute. For a start, the language used is based upon the SCF model. More particularly, most molecules have no symmetry—it is possible in principle to reach the SCF limit for a molecule with no symmetry by using only... 

However, if the correction terms are introduced as demonstrated above, it is just a way of approaching the limit in which the trial function is expressed as ff(r, t)X(R, t) with no restriction on the form of X(R, f), i.e., it is not for instance a GWP at all times We shall denote this limit the self-consistent field limit (SCF) or rather the time-dependent SCF limit (TDSCF). The reason for this designation is that the equations for the two wavefunctions are solved self-consistently, i.e., the TDSE for one mode involves the average interaction with the other and vice versa. Thus, if we insert a product type wavefunction r r, t)X R, t) in the TDSE, equation (7), using the expansion (1), multiply fi om the left with X(R, t) and integrate over R we get... 

Figure 3 A schematic illustration on how the exact quantum limit can be reached through either the multitrajectory approach or a multiconfiguration self-consistent field theory. Correction terms e (t) are introduced to reach the SCF-limit retaining a trajectory concept...

---