ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/trunk/fennellDissertation/waterChapter.tex
(Generate patch)

Comparing trunk/fennellDissertation/waterChapter.tex (file contents):
Revision 2977 by chrisfen, Sun Aug 27 15:24:39 2006 UTC vs.
Revision 2978 by chrisfen, Sun Aug 27 19:34:53 2006 UTC

# Line 806 | Line 806 | EXPERIMENTAL DATA AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS}
806   EXPERIMENTAL DATA AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS}
807   \footnotesize
808   \centering
809 < \begin{tabular}{ lccccc }
809 > \begin{tabular}{ llccccc }
810   \toprule
811   \toprule
812 < & SSD1 & SSD/E & SSD1 (RF) & SSD/RF & Expt. \\
812 > & & SSD1 & SSD/E & SSD1 (RF) & SSD/RF & Experiment [Ref.] \\
813   \midrule
814 < $\rho$ (g/cm$^3$) & 0.999(1) & 0.996(1) & 0.972(2) & 0.997(1) & 0.997 \\
815 < $C_p$ (cal/mol K) & 28.80(11) & 25.45(9) & 28.28(6) & 23.83(16) & 17.98 \\
816 < $D$ ($10^{-5}$ cm$^2$/s) & 1.78(7) & 2.51(18) & 2.00(17) & 2.32(6) & 2.299\\
817 < Coordination Number ($n_C$) & 3.9 & 4.3 & 3.8 & 4.4 & 4.7 \\
818 < H-bonds per particle ($n_H$) & 3.7 & 3.6 & 3.7 & 3.7 & 3.5 \\
819 < $\tau_1$ (ps) & 10.9(6) & 7.3(4) & 7.5(7) & 7.2(4) & 5.7 \\
820 < $\tau_2$ (ps) & 4.7(4) & 3.1(2) & 3.5(3) & 3.2(2) & 2.3 \\
814 > $\rho$ & (g cm$^{-3}$) & 0.999(1) & 0.996(1) & 0.972(2) & 0.997(1) & 0.997 \cite{CRC80}\\
815 > $C_p$ & (cal mol$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$) & 28.80(11) & 25.45(9) & 28.28(6) & 23.83(16) & 18.005 \cite{Wagner02}\\
816 > $D$ & ($10^{-5}$ cm$^2$ s$^{-1}$) & 1.78(7) & 2.51(18) & 2.00(17) & 2.32(6) & 2.299 \cite{Mills73}\\
817 > $n_C$ & & 3.9 & 4.3 & 3.8 & 4.4 & 4.7 \cite{Hura00}\\
818 > $n_H$ & & 3.7 & 3.6 & 3.7 & 3.7 & 3.5 \cite{Soper86}\\
819 > $\tau_1$ & (ps) & 10.9(6) & 7.3(4) & 7.5(7) & 7.2(4) & 5.7 \cite{Eisenberg69}\\
820 > $\tau_2$ & (ps) & 4.7(4) & 3.1(2) & 3.5(3) & 3.2(2) & 2.3 \cite{Krynicki66}\\
821   \bottomrule
822   \end{tabular}
823   \label{tab:liquidProperties}
# Line 862 | Line 862 | regime ($t >
862   (\ref{eq:OrientCorr}) were $\alpha$ is equal to $z$. From these
863   correlation functions, the orientational relaxation time of the dipole
864   vector can be calculated from an exponential fit in the long-time
865 < regime ($t >
866 < \tau_l$).\cite{Rothschild84} Calculation of these time constants were
867 < averaged over five detailed {\it NVE} simulations performed at the ambient
868 < conditions for each of the respective models. It should be noted that
869 < the commonly cited value of 1.9 ps for $\tau_2$ was determined from
870 < the NMR data in Ref. \cite{Krynicki66} at a temperature near
871 < 34$^\circ$C.\cite{Rahman71} Because of the strong temperature
872 < dependence of $\tau_2$, it is necessary to recalculate it at 298K to
873 < make proper comparisons. The value shown in Table
865 > regime ($t > \tau_l$).\cite{Rothschild84} Calculation of these time
866 > constants were averaged over five detailed {\it NVE} simulations
867 > performed at the ambient conditions for each of the respective
868 > models. It should be noted that the commonly cited value of 1.9 ps for
869 > $\tau_2$ was determined from the NMR data in Ref. \cite{Krynicki66} at
870 > a temperature near 34$^\circ$C.\cite{Rahman71} Because of the strong
871 > temperature dependence of $\tau_2$, it is necessary to recalculate it
872 > at 298K to make proper comparisons. The value shown in Table
873   \ref{tab:liquidProperties} was calculated from the same NMR data in the
874   fashion described in Ref. \cite{Krynicki66}. Similarly, $\tau_1$ was
875   recomputed for 298K from the data in Ref. \cite{Eisenberg69}.
# Line 883 | Line 882 | can be attributed to the use of the Ewald sum.\cite{Ch
882   can be attributed to the use of the Ewald sum.\cite{Chandra99}
883  
884   \subsection{SSD/RF and Damped Electrostatics}
885 +
886 + In section \ref{sec:dampingMultipoles}, a method was described for
887 + applying the damped {\sc sf} or {\sc sp} techniques to for systems
888 + containing point multipoles. The SSD family of water models is the
889 + perfect test case because of the dipole-dipole (and
890 + charge-dipole/quadrupole) interactions that are present. The {\sc sf}
891 + and {\sc sp} techniques were presented as a pairwise replacement for
892 + the Ewald summation. It has been suggested that models parametrized
893 + for the Ewald summation (like TIP5P-E) would be appropriate for use
894 + with a reaction field and vice versa.\cite{Rick04} Therefore, we
895 + decided to test the SSD/RF water model with this damped electrostatic
896 + technique in place of the reaction field to see how the calculated
897 + properties change.
898  
899   \begin{table}
900 < \caption{PROPERTIES OF SSD/RF WHEN USING VARIOUS ELECTROSTATIC CORRECTION METHODS}
900 > \caption{PROPERTIES OF SSD/RF WHEN USING DIFFERENT ELECTROSTATIC CORRECTION METHODS}
901   \footnotesize
902   \centering
903 < \begin{tabular}{ lccc }
903 > \begin{tabular}{ llccc }
904   \toprule
905   \toprule
906 < & Reaction Field & Damped Electrostatics & Expt. \\
907 < & $\epsilon = 80$ & $\alpha = 0.2125\AA$ & \\
906 > & & Reaction Field & Damped Electrostatics & Experiment [Ref.] \\
907 > & & $\epsilon = 80$ & $\alpha = 0.2125$\AA$^{-1}$ & \\
908   \midrule
909 < $\rho$ (g/cm$^3$) & 0.997(1) & 1.004(4) & 0.997 \\
910 < $C_p$ (cal/mol K) & 23.8(2) & 27(1) & 17.98 \\
911 < $D$ ($10^{-5}$ cm$^2$/s) & 2.32(6) & 2.33(2) & 2.299\\
912 < Coordination Number ($n_C$) & 4.4 & 4.3 & 4.7 \\
913 < H-bonds per particle ($n_H$) & 3.7 & 3.7 & 3.5 \\
914 < $\tau_1$ (ps) & 7.2(4) & 5.82(1) & 5.7 \\
915 < $\tau_2$ (ps) & 3.2(2) & 2.42(1) & 2.3 \\
909 > $\rho$ & (g cm$^{-3}$) & 0.997(1) & 1.004(4) & 0.997 \cite{CRC80}\\
910 > $C_p$ & (cal mol$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$) & 23.8(2) & 27(1) & 18.005 \cite{Wagner02} \\
911 > $D$ & ($10^{-5}$ cm$^2$ s$^{-1}$) & 2.32(6) & 2.33(2) & 2.299 \cite{Mills73}\\
912 > $n_C$ & & 4.4 & 4.4 & 4.7 \cite{Hura00}\\
913 > $n_H$ & & 3.7 & 3.7 & 3.5 \cite{Soper86}\\
914 > $\tau_1$ & (ps) & 7.2(4) & 5.86(8) & 5.7 \cite{Eisenberg69}\\
915 > $\tau_2$ & (ps) & 3.2(2) & 2.45(7) & 2.3 \cite{Krynicki66}\\
916   \bottomrule
917   \end{tabular}
918   \label{tab:dampedSSDRF}
# Line 918 | Line 930 | qualitative nature of contour plotting.
930  
931   \section{Tetrahedrally Restructured Elongated Dipole (TRED) Water Model}
932  
933 + \begin{table}
934 + \caption{PROPERTIES OF TRED COMPARED WITH SSD/RF AND EXPERIMENT}
935 + \footnotesize
936 + \centering
937 + \begin{tabular}{ llccc }
938 + \toprule
939 + \toprule
940 + & & SSD/RF & TRED & Experiment [Ref.]\\
941 + & & $\alpha = 0.2125$\AA$^{-1}$ & $\alpha = 0.2125$\AA$^{-1}$ & \\
942 + \midrule
943 + $\rho$ & (g cm$^{-3}$) & 1.004(4) & 0.996(4) & 0.997 \cite{CRC80}\\
944 + $C_p$ & (cal mol$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$) & 27(1) & & 18.005 \cite{Wagner02} \\
945 + $D$ & ($10^{-5}$ cm$^2$ s$^{-1}$) & 2.33(2) & 2.30(5) & 2.299 \cite{Mills73}\\
946 + $n_C$ & & 4.4 & 5.3 & 4.7 \cite{Hura00}\\
947 + $n_H$ & & 3.7 & 4.1 & 3.5 \cite{Soper86}\\
948 + $\tau_1$ & (ps) & 5.86(8) & 6.0(1) & 5.7 \cite{Eisenberg69}\\
949 + $\tau_2$ & (ps) & 2.45(7) & 2.49(5) & 2.3 \cite{Krynicki66}\\
950 + $\epsilon_0$ & & 82.6(6) & & 78.3 \cite{Malmberg56}\\
951 + $\tau_D$ & (ps) & & & 8.2(4) \cite{Kindt96}\\
952 + \bottomrule
953 + \end{tabular}
954 + \label{tab:tredProps}
955 + \end{table}
956 +
957   \section{Conclusions}
958  
959   In the above sections, the density maximum and temperature dependence

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines