2018
DOI: 10.1007/s00894-018-3874-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Feynman dispersion correction: a proof of principle for MNDO

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This issue has been addressed by including special hydrogen bond corrections in MNDO-type methods. ,− , In contrast, the OM x methods treat hydrogen-bonding interactions even without such corrections reasonably well, ,,, while inclusion of dispersion corrections generally further improves the accuracy. , One should note, however, that the addition of empirical attractive dispersion corrections to any semiempirical Hamiltonian parametrized without such corrections will inevitably deteriorate the accuracy of the computed heats of formation (which will become too small), while the computed relative energies may become more or less accurate. , Hence, it is more consistent to reparametrize the Hamiltonian with inclusion of dispersion corrections. This has so far been done only in PM7, which however suffers from error accumulation in very large noncovalent complexes, , and in the proof-of-principle MNDO-F method, which still has large errors in heats of formation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This issue has been addressed by including special hydrogen bond corrections in MNDO-type methods. ,− , In contrast, the OM x methods treat hydrogen-bonding interactions even without such corrections reasonably well, ,,, while inclusion of dispersion corrections generally further improves the accuracy. , One should note, however, that the addition of empirical attractive dispersion corrections to any semiempirical Hamiltonian parametrized without such corrections will inevitably deteriorate the accuracy of the computed heats of formation (which will become too small), while the computed relative energies may become more or less accurate. , Hence, it is more consistent to reparametrize the Hamiltonian with inclusion of dispersion corrections. This has so far been done only in PM7, which however suffers from error accumulation in very large noncovalent complexes, , and in the proof-of-principle MNDO-F method, which still has large errors in heats of formation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Van der Waals interactions are divided into an attractive (dispersion) and a repulsive (Pauli repulsion) component. Several correction schemes have been discussed for electronic-structure methods, which suffer from an insufficient description of dispersion interactions due to their incomplete description of electron correlation; a common point of view considers the classical case of an attractive interaction resulting from oscillating dipoles originally introduced by London, which then lends itself to add attractive potential energy contributions defined in terms of internuclear distances to the total electronic energy, analogous to the attractive part in Lennard-Jones potentials of classical force fields.…”
Section: Automated Parametrization Of Sfammentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nanosecond dynamics of proton escape from NH 4 + @C 60 MNDO-F [44,45] was used to investigate the escape of a proton through the fullerene wall for the reaction Fig. 3 Time dependence of the dipole moment along the molecular axis and snapshots from an NVE dynamic simulation of the radical cation of compound 1.…”
Section: Applications Reorganization Dynamics Upon Ionizationmentioning
confidence: 99%