Separated-atom basis

The first (inconclusive) work bearing on the synthesis of element 104 was published by the Dubna group in 1964. However, the crucial Dubna evidence (1969-70) for the production of element 104 by bombardment of 94PU with loNe came after the development of a sophisticated method for rapid in situ chlorination of the product atoms followed by their gas-chromatographic separation on an atom-by-atom basis. This was a heroic enterprise which combined cyclotron nuclear physics and chemical separations. As we have seen, the actinide series of elements ends with 103 Lr. The next element should be in Group 4 of the transition elements, i.e. a heavier congenor of Ti, Zr and Hf. As such it would be expected to have a chloride... 

The separate-atom AO basis gives —1.10388 a.u. the single optimised exponent gives — 1.13463 a.u. (exponents 1.0 and 1.333) and the completely optimised basis —1.14518 (both exponents 1.201). We shall return to this point later since, as we have established then, these conclusions are only valid at one value of the intemuclear separation (the experimental value, 1.4 a.u.). 

The virial ratio is, as we noted above, 1.3366 for the separate-atom AO basis MO calculation, i.e. not 1.0. Now within the confines of the linear variation method (the usual LCAO approach) there is no remaining degree of freedom to use in order to constrain the virial ratio to its formally correct value (or indeed to impose any other constraint). Thus imposing the correct virial ratio on the linear variation method is, in this case, not possible without simultaneously destroying the symmetry of the wave function. Only by optimising the non-linear parameters can we improve the virial ratio as the above results show. Even at this most elementary level, the imposition of various formally correct constraints on the wave function is seem to generate contradictions. 

If we now consider the numerical results quoted in Table 1 for the optimum exponents, three conclusions follow immediately. Firstly, the 1 s orbital on the heavy atom is unchanged by molecule formation this is to be expected. Second, the sp3 orbitals involved in the X—H bond are all contracted with respect to their free-atom values. Finally, the sp3 orbitals containing Tone pairs of electrons are largely unchanged or expanded slightly on molecule formation. In fact, of course, the optimum separate atoms minimal basis functions do not have the same orbital exponent for the 2 s and 2 p AOs. To facilitate comparisons therefore in Table 1 the optimum n = 2 exponent is given for the atoms when such a constraint is imposed (the qualitative conclusions are, in any event, unchanged by use of these exponents for comparison or a notional exponent of 1/4 (fs + 3 fp) or any reasonable choice). 

The electron densities of the separate atoms are described by Hartree-Fock wave functions approximated by analytic extended (Slater-type) basis sets. 

In this paper we present the first application of the ZORA (Zeroth Order Regular Approximation of the Dirac Fock equation) formalism in Ab Initio electronic structure calculations. The ZORA method, which has been tested previously in the context of Density Functional Theory, has been implemented in the GAMESS-UK package. As was shown earlier we can split off a scalar part from the two component ZORA Hamiltonian. In the present work only the one component part is considered. We introduce a separate internal basis to represent the extra matrix elements, needed for the ZORA corrections. This leads to different options for the computation of the Coulomb matrix in this internal basis. The performance of this Hamiltonian and the effect of the different Coulomb matrix alternatives is tested in calculations on the radon en xenon atoms and the AuH molecule. In the atomic cases we compare with numerical Dirac Fock and numerical ZORA methods and with non relativistic and full Dirac basis set calculations. It is shown that ZORA recovers the bulk of the relativistic effect and that ZORA and Dirac Fock perform equally well in medium size basis set calculations. For AuH we have calculated the equilibrium bond length with the non relativistic Hartree Fock and ZORA methods and compare with the Dirac Fock result and the experimental value. Again the ZORA and Dirac Fock errors are of the same order of magnitude. 

Size consistency The DMRG ansatz is size-consistent when using a localized basis (e.g., orthogonalized atomic orbitals) in which the wave function for the separated atoms can be considered to factorize into the wave functions for the individual atoms expressed in disjoint subsets of the localized basis. To see this in an informal way, let us assume that we have two DMRG wave functions Pa) and I Pg) for subsystems A and B separately. Both Pa and VPB have a matrix product structure, that is... 

Practically all of the calculation studies we discuss here were performed within the HF or DFT formalism, and most employed acid site cluster models that may contain anywhere between one and five Si and A1 atoms. Basis sets used to represent the electrons of the system were usually of double-zeta quality or higher i.e., each filled orbital of an atom has been represented by two separate exponential functions. In addition, extra functions have been added—so-called polarization functions—to represent orbitals that are empty. These allow the orbital more flexibility and result in better theoretical predictions. 

The quantities nr and nr s are used to calculate atom charges and bond orders. The Mulliken gross population in the basis function (fir is defined as the Mulliken net population nr (Eq. (5.211)) plus one half of all those Mulliken overlap populations nrh (Eq. (5.212)) which involve separated atoms Srs is very small) ... 

It can be seen that, in the average density matrix formalism which is based on spin system model, the scalar couplings and the exchange processes are handled simultaneously. Thus they cannot be separated and a larger atomic basis (spin system) is required for their description. Meanwhile, the Monte Carlo method based on spin sets separates the two interactions, and thus spin systems can be reduced to smaller spin sets. 

The Isa and Isb atomic orbitals are the building blocks (basis set) for the molecular orbitals. The wavefimction of the electron in the molecule is simply the normalized sum of the Is atomic orbitals. In this case the function is said to be constructed from a minimal basis set because only the atomic orbitals that contain electrons in the separated atoms are allowed to be part of the overall function. If higher energy, unfilled atomic orbitals (2s, 2p, etc.) are allowed to contribute to the LCAO description of the molecular orbital, the term expanded basis set is used. 

Table 3.1. Calculations of ground state energies for the oxygen molecule, E/Oj), for the oxygen atoms moved 2.0 nm apart, EjfO—O), and twice the energy of a single oxygen atom, E/20), plus O2 binding energies estimated as the difference between E, and each of the two calculations for separated atoms. The value determined experimentally is -5.2 eV. All calculations use the SV basis set. HF = Hartree-Fock, MP = Moller-Plesset. For the remaining rows see discussion in text.

Colloidal nanoparticles are attractive catalysts because they exhibit the advantages of both homogeneous catalysts (high reaction rate on a per atom basis) and heterogeneous catalysts (good recyclability due to ease of separation). The determination of... 

Extending this lattice to the llxllxll case (that is 1331 basis functions), Ralston and Wilson(66) reported an energy of —1.094929 hartree for the hydrogen molecular ion with a nuclear separation of 2.0 bohr an error of 7705 /xhartree. These authors considered an extension of the Gaussian Cell model, which they termed a molecular lattice basis set, since the lattice basis set is required to describe only molecular effects, being supplemented by atomic basis sets of high precision. This basis set is written... 

---