Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The potential-energy surfaces of the ArClF and ArCl2 complexes are determined by the Hartree-Fock (HF) and Mo/ller–Plesset calculations (up to MP4) in an efficient basis set of 6-31+G(2df ) for the intermolecular energy. The interaction energies are calculated by the supermolecular approach with the full counterpoise corrections for the basis-set superposition error. Three local potential minima are found for ArClF corresponding to the linear Ar–Cl–F and Ar–F–Cl and the asymmetric T-shaped structures. For these the well depths and the distances are D(Ar–Cl–F)=233.5 (MP2) or 219.7 cm−1 (MP4), RArCl=3.38 Å; D(Ar–F–Cl)=119.2 (MP2) or 127.2 cm−1 (MP4), RArF=3.3 Å; and D(T-shaped)=130.4 (MP2) or 132.6 cm−1 (MP4), RArCl=3.83 Å. The results are in accord with the linear ArClF structure as the most-stable structure determined by experiment with the estimate of De=228 cm−1 at RArCl=3.33 Å. For the ArCl2 complex, minima are found corresponding to the linear and the T-shaped structures. At the MP2 level the well depths and distances are D(linear)=220.1 cm−1, RArCl=3.5 Å; D(T-shaped)=183.6 cm−1, RArCl=3.9 Å. Only a small change results at the MP4 level D(linear)=195.3 cm−1, D(T-shaped)=165.2 cm−1. The results for the T-shaped ArCl2 are in good agreement with the experimental results of De=185±1 cm−1 and RArCl=3.8±0.1 Å. Estimates for the effects of differences in zero-point energy show the two structures may be of similar stablity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tao et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: