4.6 Article

A Spectroscopic Validation of the Improved Lennard-Jones Model

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 26, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules26133906

关键词

noble gas molecules; rovibrational energies; lifetime; spectroscopic constants; improved Lennard Jones model

资金

  1. CAPES
  2. CNPq
  3. FAPDF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Lennard-Jones (LJ) and Improved Lennard-Jones (ILJ) potential models have been compared on accurate CCSD(T)/CBS electronic energies, with ILJ showing better agreement with experimental data. The CCSD(T)/CBS energies were used to determine the beta parameter of the ILJ form and to analyze the instability of He-Ne and He-Ar molecules at high temperatures.
The Lennard-Jones (LJ) and Improved Lennard-Jones (ILJ) potential models have been deeply tested on the most accurate CCSD(T)/CBS electronic energies calculated for some weakly bound prototype systems. These results are important to plan the correct application of such models to systems at increasing complexity. CCSD(T)/CBS ground state electronic energies were determined for 21 diatomic systems composed by the combination of the noble gas atoms. These potentials were employed to calculate the rovibrational spectroscopic constants, and the results show that for 20 of the 21 pairs the ILJ predictions agree more effectively with the experimental data than those of the LJ model. The CCSD(T)/CBS energies were also used to determine the beta parameter of the ILJ form, related to the softness/hardness of the interacting partners and controlling the shape of the potential well. This information supports the experimental finding that suggests the adoption of beta approximate to 9 for most of the systems involving noble gas atoms. The He-Ne and He-Ar molecules have a lifetime of less than 1ps in the 200-500 K temperature range, indicating that they are not considered stable under thermal conditions of gaseous bulks. Furthermore, the controversy concerning the presence of a virtual or a real vibrational state in the He2 molecule is discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据