A Calculation of dipole and quadrupole momentum of CO

deFe_9807
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
This is my first post of this topic so I hope it is in the correct place.
I need some help to figure out the using of GAUSSIAN in order of calculate the dipole and quadrupole moment for the carbon monoxide molecule with different levels of theory (SCF and Post Hartree Fock methods). In particular, I have some problem in quadrupole momentum calculation.

I'm considering the traceless quadrupole moment tensor for my calculation and because CO is a linear molecule it is sufficient to use only the zz component. The value I carry out from the calculation are significantly different from the experimental (and so the value found by some authors who carried out the same calculation) but they show a deviation of circa 50% from the values in the paper I'm using as reference.

I thought that probably I wrote the input file wrong, but the dipole moment matches both the experimental and the computational results.

TheGAUSSIAN input file I wrote contains the keywords Density=current and Prop=Dipole.

I hope someone could help me.

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry, the information in this post isn't very clear and I can't follow. Can you list for us the references you mentioned, and list the values you calculated as well as the literature results (both theory and experiment)? Can you also share your input file (if it's in an ASCII or other freely readable format) or summarize the main parameters and their values?
 
Hi Twigg,
Yes, sorry for the lack of information. The references I'm using come from the paper "Method/Basis Set Dependence of the Traceless Quadrupole Moment Calculation for N2, CO2, SO2, HCl, CO, NH3, PH3, HF, and H2O" by Siegfried Hofinger and Martin Wendland and these are the result they obtained for the qadrupole moment traceless tensor.
1645617534032.png

In the paper (I don't know if I am allowed to share the pdf here) they say that, in order to compute the quadrupole moment traceless tensor, they used another software developed by themselves.
In the next Table I list the results that I carried out with the GAUSSIAN
1645618021329.png

I share to you also one of the input files I wrote (the other are the same but I just changed the method and the basis set) and the correspondig output file.
The experimental value is obtained from https://cccbdb.nist.gov/quadlistx.asp#1998Gra/Imr:49 and for CO it is -9.47± 0.15 ⋅10-40 C⋅m2 (-2.1107± 0.034 a.u.). The calculated value used as reference is -1.44±0.03 a.u. (Wolinski, K.; Sadlej, A. J.; Karlström, G. Mol Phys 1991, 72, 425–432).

Thank you for your availability and I hope this post is clearer than the previous.
 

Attachments

From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...
Back
Top