<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<atom:link href="http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/extern.php?action=feed&amp;tid=922&amp;type=rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<title><![CDATA[Multiwfn forum / Inconsistency between interaction energy and AIM descriptors]]></title>
		<link>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?id=922</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in Inconsistency between interaction energy and AIM descriptors.]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2023 03:32:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>FluxBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Inconsistency between interaction energy and AIM descriptors]]></title>
			<link>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=3529#p3529</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Dear Tian,<br />Thank you very much.</p><p>Sincerely,<br />Saeed</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (saeed_E)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2023 03:32:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=3529#p3529</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Inconsistency between interaction energy and AIM descriptors]]></title>
			<link>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=3528#p3528</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Dear Saeed,</p><p>This observation is somewhat expected. If you perform ESP analysis by Multiwfn, you should find ESP over sigma-hole of iodine atom is much larger than the case of Br atom, indicating stronger electrostatic attraction interaction with the nitrogen. However, iodine atom has a much larger radius than Br, leading to sparser distribution of electron density in interaction region, thus rho(BCP) is lower.</p><p>Best,</p><p>Tian</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (sobereva)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2023 20:32:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=3528#p3528</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Inconsistency between interaction energy and AIM descriptors]]></title>
			<link>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=3524#p3524</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Dear Tian,<br />Please consider the XB interaction between F-I and F-Br as two LAs and the nitrogen atom of a given Diene. Values of interaction energies (through sobEDAW or DLPNO-CCSD(T)) indicate that the XB interaction between F-I and nitrogen atom is much more stronger than that between F-Br and nitrogen atom. On the other hand, the value of Rho, H, and |V|/G computed at the BCP of mentioned XB interactions (F-I...N and F-Br...N) show that the interaction between F-Br and N atom is stronger than that between F-I and N! Indeed, the values of interaction energies and AIM descriptors are quite against each other. If possible, please let me know how you explain such an inconsistency I have not ever encountered.</p><p>Please be aware that geometry optimizations were done at M06-2X/def2-TZVP level and corresponding &quot;chk&quot; files were used for AIM analysis by Multiwfn.</p><p>Sincerely,<br />Saeed</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (saeed_E)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2023 09:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=3524#p3524</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
