Tight-bonding model

The thermochromic effect of distibines has been treated in three papers by Hoffmann and colleagues using a tight bonding model based on extended Hiickel calculations (33,47,48). These calculations treated only unsaturated distibines, and major attention was focused on bistibole (47). The important orbitals of the stacked bistibole are derived from molecular orbitals of the SbC4H4 unit (see Fig. 6). The HOMO results from the in-phase mixing of the Sb(pz) and Sb(n ) orbitals and is largely localized on the Sb atoms. At the zone center (k = 0) this band has primarily lone pair... 

These computational methods (tight-bonding models) are reviewed by Goringe et al. 

Goringe CM, Bowler DR, Hemdndez E. Tight-bonding modelling of materials. Rep Prog Phys 1997 60 1447-1512. 

Preliminary models of the surface topography, for example, can be determined by atomic-probe methods, ion-scattering, electron diffraction, or Auger spectroscopy. The chemical bonds of adsorbates can be estimated from infrared spectroscopy. The surface electronic structure is accessible by photoelectron emission techniques. In case the surface structure is known, its electronic structure has to be computed with sophisticated methods, where existing codes more and more rely on first principles density functional theory (DFT) [16-18], or, in case of tight-binding models [19], they obtain their parameters from a fit to DFT data [20]. The fit is not without ambiguities, since it is unknown whether the density of states used for the fit is really unique. 

After the discovery of the metallic behaviour of PAc (Shirakawa et al., 1977) most of the work on theoretical models concentrated on this polymer. This built on the earlier studies of Longuet-Higgins and Salem (1959) and others who used the Hiickel model to demonstrate that the backbone of PAc in its ground state has a bond alternated structure, Fig. 9.8(b), rather than one with equal length C-C bonds, Fig. 9.8(a). In 1979 a Hiickel tight binding model was introduced that provided the basis for much of the subsequent discussion of themolecular and electronic structure of PAc (Su, Schrieffer and Heeger, 1979 and 1980). It is now usually referred to as the SSH model. In the adiabatic... 

The electronic states for a given lattice configuration are given by the solution of fleiect- In the limit of equal bond lengths, we can use the result already obtained for the one-dimensional, tight binding model, Equation (4.22), to write down the result for the dispersion of the electron band as ... 

Even though the bonding in metals must be purely covalent, we cannot use the simplified bonding model of the earlier section. That model is appropriate for cases where the delocalized crystal orbitals can be replaced by average localized orbitals. This is not possible for metals, or at least not easy. Actually the tight binding theory at the Hiickel level of approximation has been used for metals in several cases. 

The methods used to calculate surface states need not concern us here in any detail, but it will be instructive to give a brief indication of the two approaches currently employed (self-consistent calculations of the electronic energy and surface potential and realistic tight binding models), since this will provide some insight into semiconductor surface bonds and hence into chemisorption. 

Besides semiconductor elements (e.g., silicon, carbon), there have been considerable efforts in the last several years devoted to the tight-binding modeling of metals. Since the strong directional d-band bonding in many body-centered cubic transition metals resembles the covalent bonding in semiconductors to some extent, they may provide good opportunities for TBMD approaches. 

The atomistic methods usually employ atoms, molecules or their group and can be classified into three main categories, namely the quantum mechanics (QM), molecular dynamics (MD) and Monte Carlo (MC). Other atomistic modeling techniques such as tight bonding molecular dynamics (TBMD), local density (LD), dissipative particle dynamics (DPD), lattice Boltzmann (LB), Brownian dynamics (BD), time-dependent Ginzbuig-Lanau method, Morse potential function model, and modified Morse potential fimction model were also applied afterwards. 

In the physics literature models that assume delocalized valence electrons are more common than those based on localized electrons such as described here. Examples of such models for solids are band models based on molecular orbitals (the so-called tight-binding method) or models that describe the electrons in metals as being in an almost flat potential (the nearly-free-electron model). While physicists traditionally think in terms of delocalized electrons, chemists feel more at ease with localized electrons, and almost all the bonding models discussed here are based on localized valence electrons. The dilemma between stationary eigenstates and molecular structure is less problematic in these models than in those for symmetry-adapted delocalized electrons. 

In water, an increase of the facial selectivity up to 2 1 in favor of the si face (antiaddition) of the diene was observed as depicted in Figure 3. That is the contrary of what has been predicted from several models of cycloadditions. The perpendicular model in which the heteroatom is peipendicular to the dienyl system predict syn selectivity by syn periplanar approach of the dienophile (17,18). The coplanar model in which the heteroatom lies in the plane outside the dienyl system, predicts syn selectivity as well (19). Both of then failed to explain our anti selectivity without implication of the p-hydroxy group. Furthermore, the increase of the anti-selectivity in water compared with toluene could be a consequence of the hydrophobic effect which favored the dienophile approach anti to the hydrophilic face where hydroxy group are tightly bonded to water molecules. 

---