“…In fact, all the prerequisites for a correct application of the model appear to be met in the present case. In particular: - we have two symmetric systems allowing for degenerate exciton coupling, that is, the two “local” vibrations have equal frequencies (diagonal force constants);
- the two interacting units do not perturb much each other in their electrical response, in fact, for the relevant normal modes, the total electric dipole transition moments are approximated by the sum of the moments of the two separate units (see Tables and and discussion below), i.e., the total dipole strength is conserved;
- the relevant normal modes are associated with large electric dipole transition moments, i.e., the corresponding IR bands are strong; this is necessary for the two units to interact through a dipole–dipole term;
- the relevant normal modes give rise to intense bisignate doublets, with small frequency separation and nearly conservative, i.e., with similar band integral;
- because of the 1,1′ or 3,3′ coupling in compounds 1 and 2 , the dipole transition moments of the two BODIPY units are far from a parallel/antiparallel orientation: this situation, encountered, for instance, in 2,2′-coupled BODIPY dimers, would lead to a vanishing exciton coupling contribution, so other terms would dominate the rotational strengths. Moreover, a little deviation from this condition may generate opposite results; ,, such deviations are difficult to calculate with precision and can be accessible through thermal energy fluctuations.
…”