<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Ck2917</id>
	<title>ChemWiki - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Ck2917"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ck2917"/>
	<updated>2026-05-16T09:00:53Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.0</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792786</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792786"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T14:24:23Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 8: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Surface Plot exothermicrctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: PES plot - Position of TS]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 6: MEP - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Calculation of reactant energy MD.png|thumb|centre|Figure 7: Dynamic - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Calculation of reactant energy MD zoom.png|thumb|centre|Figure 8: Dynamic - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation (zoomed).]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly momentum was changed so that a succesful reaction was created to be able to study it.&lt;br /&gt;
As we determined previously, the overall forward reaction is exothermic, and overall energy is being conserved. The excess energy that the products possess is converted into a large amount of vibrational energy within the HF molecule and can be seen distinctively from the PES and the contour plot depicted below.&lt;br /&gt;
From an energy vs time plot, it is shown that total energy is constant and that it is always the sum of the combinations in potential and kinetic energies within the system.&lt;br /&gt;
The momentum vs time plot illustrates the large amount of momentum present in the product after the reaction proceded further indicating the vast amount of vibrational energy present. This extra vibrational energy is the source of heat which is released upon exothermic reactions hence a way to confirm this reaction completion could be calorimetry in order to quantify the amount of energy liberated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn surfaceplot.png|thumb|center|Figure 9: PES of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn momentavstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 10: Momentum vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn energyvstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 11: Energy vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn.png|thumb|center|Figure 12: Contour plot of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Polanyi rules, state that vibrational energy is more efficient in promoting a late-barrier reaction than translational energy. &#039;&#039;(Z. Zhang ,Y. Zhou, D. H. Zhang, G. Czakó, J. M. Bowman,J. Phys. Chem. Lett.2012,3,23,pp3416-3419)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By using the Hammond&#039;s postulate, a late barrier transition is thought to be endothermic. This means that the vibrational energy which results from the momentum possessed by the diatomic; in this case HF, contributes more and is more significant in the reaction between HF and F. Conversely, when considering the exothermic process; H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and F, the translational motion of the Fluorine atom is more significant.&lt;br /&gt;
Polanyi rules were confirmed though the experiment by testing a range of values in order for a reaction to be completed successfully. When the momentum of the H molecule was set high (Translational energy) for the endothermic process reaction was not succesful. Upon swapping the momenta (high for HF and low for H), the reaction proceeded which is in line with what the rules suggest. It can also be deduced that activation energy isn&#039;t the only factor contributing to the reaction but it is the energy allocated to the correct type of mode (vibration vs translation).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792783</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792783"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T14:24:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 7: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Surface Plot exothermicrctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: PES plot - Position of TS]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 6: MEP - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Calculation of reactant energy MD.png|thumb|centre|Figure 7: Dynamic - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Calculation of reactant energy MD zoom.png|thumb|centre|Figure 8: Dynamic - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation (zoomed).]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly momentum was changed so that a succesful reaction was created to be able to study it.&lt;br /&gt;
As we determined previously, the overall forward reaction is exothermic, and overall energy is being conserved. The excess energy that the products possess is converted into a large amount of vibrational energy within the HF molecule and can be seen distinctively from the PES and the contour plot depicted below.&lt;br /&gt;
From an energy vs time plot, it is shown that total energy is constant and that it is always the sum of the combinations in potential and kinetic energies within the system.&lt;br /&gt;
The momentum vs time plot illustrates the large amount of momentum present in the product after the reaction proceded further indicating the vast amount of vibrational energy present. This extra vibrational energy is the source of heat which is released upon exothermic reactions hence a way to confirm this reaction completion could be calorimetry in order to quantify the amount of energy liberated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn surfaceplot.png|thumb|center|Figure 8: PES of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn momentavstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 9: Momentum vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn energyvstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 10: Energy vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn.png|thumb|center|Figure 11: Contour plot of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Polanyi rules, state that vibrational energy is more efficient in promoting a late-barrier reaction than translational energy. &#039;&#039;(Z. Zhang ,Y. Zhou, D. H. Zhang, G. Czakó, J. M. Bowman,J. Phys. Chem. Lett.2012,3,23,pp3416-3419)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By using the Hammond&#039;s postulate, a late barrier transition is thought to be endothermic. This means that the vibrational energy which results from the momentum possessed by the diatomic; in this case HF, contributes more and is more significant in the reaction between HF and F. Conversely, when considering the exothermic process; H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and F, the translational motion of the Fluorine atom is more significant.&lt;br /&gt;
Polanyi rules were confirmed though the experiment by testing a range of values in order for a reaction to be completed successfully. When the momentum of the H molecule was set high (Translational energy) for the endothermic process reaction was not succesful. Upon swapping the momenta (high for HF and low for H), the reaction proceeded which is in line with what the rules suggest. It can also be deduced that activation energy isn&#039;t the only factor contributing to the reaction but it is the energy allocated to the correct type of mode (vibration vs translation).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792775</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792775"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T14:22:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 7: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Surface Plot exothermicrctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: PES plot - Position of TS]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 6: MEP - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
File:Ck Calculation of reactant energy MD.png&lt;br /&gt;
File:Ck Calculation of reactant energy MD zoom.png&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly momentum was changed so that a succesful reaction was created to be able to study it.&lt;br /&gt;
As we determined previously, the overall forward reaction is exothermic, and overall energy is being conserved. The excess energy that the products possess is converted into a large amount of vibrational energy within the HF molecule and can be seen distinctively from the PES and the contour plot depicted below.&lt;br /&gt;
From an energy vs time plot, it is shown that total energy is constant and that it is always the sum of the combinations in potential and kinetic energies within the system.&lt;br /&gt;
The momentum vs time plot illustrates the large amount of momentum present in the product after the reaction proceded further indicating the vast amount of vibrational energy present. This extra vibrational energy is the source of heat which is released upon exothermic reactions hence a way to confirm this reaction completion could be calorimetry in order to quantify the amount of energy liberated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn surfaceplot.png|thumb|center|Figure 8: PES of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn momentavstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 9: Momentum vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn energyvstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 10: Energy vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn.png|thumb|center|Figure 11: Contour plot of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Polanyi rules, state that vibrational energy is more efficient in promoting a late-barrier reaction than translational energy. &#039;&#039;(Z. Zhang ,Y. Zhou, D. H. Zhang, G. Czakó, J. M. Bowman,J. Phys. Chem. Lett.2012,3,23,pp3416-3419)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By using the Hammond&#039;s postulate, a late barrier transition is thought to be endothermic. This means that the vibrational energy which results from the momentum possessed by the diatomic; in this case HF, contributes more and is more significant in the reaction between HF and F. Conversely, when considering the exothermic process; H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and F, the translational motion of the Fluorine atom is more significant.&lt;br /&gt;
Polanyi rules were confirmed though the experiment by testing a range of values in order for a reaction to be completed successfully. When the momentum of the H molecule was set high (Translational energy) for the endothermic process reaction was not succesful. Upon swapping the momenta (high for HF and low for H), the reaction proceeded which is in line with what the rules suggest. It can also be deduced that activation energy isn&#039;t the only factor contributing to the reaction but it is the energy allocated to the correct type of mode (vibration vs translation).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Calculation_of_reactant_energy_MD_zoom.png&amp;diff=792773</id>
		<title>File:Ck Calculation of reactant energy MD zoom.png</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Calculation_of_reactant_energy_MD_zoom.png&amp;diff=792773"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T14:22:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Calculation_of_reactant_energy_MD.png&amp;diff=792771</id>
		<title>File:Ck Calculation of reactant energy MD.png</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Calculation_of_reactant_energy_MD.png&amp;diff=792771"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T14:21:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792747</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792747"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T14:15:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 7: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Surface Plot exothermicrctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: PES plot - Position of TS]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 6: MEP - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly momentum was changed so that a succesful reaction was created to be able to study it.&lt;br /&gt;
As we determined previously, the overall forward reaction is exothermic, and overall energy is being conserved. The excess energy that the products possess is converted into a large amount of vibrational energy within the HF molecule and can be seen distinctively from the PES and the contour plot depicted below.&lt;br /&gt;
From an energy vs time plot, it is shown that total energy is constant and that it is always the sum of the combinations in potential and kinetic energies within the system.&lt;br /&gt;
The momentum vs time plot illustrates the large amount of momentum present in the product after the reaction proceded further indicating the vast amount of vibrational energy present. This extra vibrational energy is the source of heat which is released upon exothermic reactions hence a way to confirm this reaction completion could be calorimetry in order to quantify the amount of energy liberated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn surfaceplot.png|thumb|center|Figure 8: PES of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn momentavstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 9: Momentum vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn energyvstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 10: Energy vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn.png|thumb|center|Figure 11: Contour plot of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Polanyi rules, state that vibrational energy is more efficient in promoting a late-barrier reaction than translational energy. &#039;&#039;(Z. Zhang ,Y. Zhou, D. H. Zhang, G. Czakó, J. M. Bowman,J. Phys. Chem. Lett.2012,3,23,pp3416-3419)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By using the Hammond&#039;s postulate, a late barrier transition is thought to be endothermic. This means that the vibrational energy which results from the momentum possessed by the diatomic; in this case HF, contributes more and is more significant in the reaction between HF and F. Conversely, when considering the exothermic process; H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and F, the translational motion of the Fluorine atom is more significant.&lt;br /&gt;
Polanyi rules were confirmed though the experiment by testing a range of values in order for a reaction to be completed successfully. When the momentum of the H molecule was set high (Translational energy) for the endothermic process reaction was not succesful. Upon swapping the momenta (high for HF and low for H), the reaction proceeded which is in line with what the rules suggest. It can also be deduced that activation energy isn&#039;t the only factor contributing to the reaction but it is the energy allocated to the correct type of mode (vibration vs translation).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792746</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792746"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T14:15:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Surface Plot exothermicrctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: PES plot - Position of TS]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: MEP - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly momentum was changed so that a succesful reaction was created to be able to study it.&lt;br /&gt;
As we determined previously, the overall forward reaction is exothermic, and overall energy is being conserved. The excess energy that the products possess is converted into a large amount of vibrational energy within the HF molecule and can be seen distinctively from the PES and the contour plot depicted below.&lt;br /&gt;
From an energy vs time plot, it is shown that total energy is constant and that it is always the sum of the combinations in potential and kinetic energies within the system.&lt;br /&gt;
The momentum vs time plot illustrates the large amount of momentum present in the product after the reaction proceded further indicating the vast amount of vibrational energy present. This extra vibrational energy is the source of heat which is released upon exothermic reactions hence a way to confirm this reaction completion could be calorimetry in order to quantify the amount of energy liberated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn surfaceplot.png|thumb|center|Figure 8: PES of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn momentavstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 9: Momentum vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn energyvstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 10: Energy vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn.png|thumb|center|Figure 11: Contour plot of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Polanyi rules, state that vibrational energy is more efficient in promoting a late-barrier reaction than translational energy. &#039;&#039;(Z. Zhang ,Y. Zhou, D. H. Zhang, G. Czakó, J. M. Bowman,J. Phys. Chem. Lett.2012,3,23,pp3416-3419)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By using the Hammond&#039;s postulate, a late barrier transition is thought to be endothermic. This means that the vibrational energy which results from the momentum possessed by the diatomic; in this case HF, contributes more and is more significant in the reaction between HF and F. Conversely, when considering the exothermic process; H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and F, the translational motion of the Fluorine atom is more significant.&lt;br /&gt;
Polanyi rules were confirmed though the experiment by testing a range of values in order for a reaction to be completed successfully. When the momentum of the H molecule was set high (Translational energy) for the endothermic process reaction was not succesful. Upon swapping the momenta (high for HF and low for H), the reaction proceeded which is in line with what the rules suggest. It can also be deduced that activation energy isn&#039;t the only factor contributing to the reaction but it is the energy allocated to the correct type of mode (vibration vs translation).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792743</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792743"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T14:15:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 5: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Surface Plot exothermicrctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 6: PES plot - Position of TS]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: MEP - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly momentum was changed so that a succesful reaction was created to be able to study it.&lt;br /&gt;
As we determined previously, the overall forward reaction is exothermic, and overall energy is being conserved. The excess energy that the products possess is converted into a large amount of vibrational energy within the HF molecule and can be seen distinctively from the PES and the contour plot depicted below.&lt;br /&gt;
From an energy vs time plot, it is shown that total energy is constant and that it is always the sum of the combinations in potential and kinetic energies within the system.&lt;br /&gt;
The momentum vs time plot illustrates the large amount of momentum present in the product after the reaction proceded further indicating the vast amount of vibrational energy present. This extra vibrational energy is the source of heat which is released upon exothermic reactions hence a way to confirm this reaction completion could be calorimetry in order to quantify the amount of energy liberated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn surfaceplot.png|thumb|center|Figure 8: PES of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn momentavstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 9: Momentum vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn energyvstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 10: Energy vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn.png|thumb|center|Figure 11: Contour plot of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Polanyi rules, state that vibrational energy is more efficient in promoting a late-barrier reaction than translational energy. &#039;&#039;(Z. Zhang ,Y. Zhou, D. H. Zhang, G. Czakó, J. M. Bowman,J. Phys. Chem. Lett.2012,3,23,pp3416-3419)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By using the Hammond&#039;s postulate, a late barrier transition is thought to be endothermic. This means that the vibrational energy which results from the momentum possessed by the diatomic; in this case HF, contributes more and is more significant in the reaction between HF and F. Conversely, when considering the exothermic process; H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and F, the translational motion of the Fluorine atom is more significant.&lt;br /&gt;
Polanyi rules were confirmed though the experiment by testing a range of values in order for a reaction to be completed successfully. When the momentum of the H molecule was set high (Translational energy) for the endothermic process reaction was not succesful. Upon swapping the momenta (high for HF and low for H), the reaction proceeded which is in line with what the rules suggest. It can also be deduced that activation energy isn&#039;t the only factor contributing to the reaction but it is the energy allocated to the correct type of mode (vibration vs translation).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Surface_Plot_exothermicrctn.png&amp;diff=792731</id>
		<title>File:Ck Surface Plot exothermicrctn.png</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Surface_Plot_exothermicrctn.png&amp;diff=792731"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T14:13:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792630</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792630"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:54:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 9: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: MEP - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly momentum was changed so that a succesful reaction was created to be able to study it.&lt;br /&gt;
As we determined previously, the overall forward reaction is exothermic, and overall energy is being conserved. The excess energy that the products possess is converted into a large amount of vibrational energy within the HF molecule and can be seen distinctively from the PES and the contour plot depicted below.&lt;br /&gt;
From an energy vs time plot, it is shown that total energy is constant and that it is always the sum of the combinations in potential and kinetic energies within the system.&lt;br /&gt;
The momentum vs time plot illustrates the large amount of momentum present in the product after the reaction proceded further indicating the vast amount of vibrational energy present. This extra vibrational energy is the source of heat which is released upon exothermic reactions hence a way to confirm this reaction completion could be calorimetry in order to quantify the amount of energy liberated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn surfaceplot.png|thumb|center|Figure 8: PES of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn momentavstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 9: Momentum vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn energyvstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 10: Energy vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn.png|thumb|center|Figure 11: Contour plot of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Polanyi rules, state that vibrational energy is more efficient in promoting a late-barrier reaction than translational energy. &#039;&#039;(Z. Zhang ,Y. Zhou, D. H. Zhang, G. Czakó, J. M. Bowman,J. Phys. Chem. Lett.2012,3,23,pp3416-3419)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By using the Hammond&#039;s postulate, a late barrier transition is thought to be endothermic. This means that the vibrational energy which results from the momentum possessed by the diatomic; in this case HF, contributes more and is more significant in the reaction between HF and F. Conversely, when considering the exothermic process; H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and F, the translational motion of the Fluorine atom is more significant.&lt;br /&gt;
Polanyi rules were confirmed though the experiment by testing a range of values in order for a reaction to be completed successfully. When the momentum of the H molecule was set high (Translational energy) for the endothermic process reaction was not succesful. Upon swapping the momenta (high for HF and low for H), the reaction proceeded which is in line with what the rules suggest. It can also be deduced that activation energy isn&#039;t the only factor contributing to the reaction but it is the energy allocated to the correct type of mode (vibration vs translation).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792588</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792588"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:45:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 9: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: MEP - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly momentum was changed so that a succesful reaction was created to be able to study it.&lt;br /&gt;
As we determined previously, the overall forward reaction is exothermic, and overall energy is being conserved. The excess energy that the products possess is converted into a large amount of vibrational energy within the HF molecule and can be seen distinctively from the PES and the contour plot depicted below.&lt;br /&gt;
From an energy vs time plot, it is shown that total energy is constant and that it is always the sum of the combinations in potential and kinetic energies within the system.&lt;br /&gt;
The momentum vs time plot illustrates the large amount of momentum present in the product after the reaction proceded further indicating the vast amount of vibrational energy present. This extra vibrational energy is the source of heat which is released upon exothermic reactions hence a way to confirm this reaction completion could be calorimetry in order to quantify the amount of energy liberated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn surfaceplot.png|thumb|center|Figure 8: PES of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn momentavstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 9: Momentum vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn energyvstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 10: Energy vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn.png|thumb|center|Figure 11: Contour plot of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Polanyi rules, state that vibrational energy is more efficient in promoting a late-barrier reaction than translational energy. &#039;&#039;(Z. Zhang ,Y. Zhou, D. H. Zhang, G. Czakó, J. M. Bowman,J. Phys. Chem. Lett.2012,3,23,pp3416-3419)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By using the Hammond&#039;s postulate, a late barrier transition is thought to be endothermic. This means that the vibrational energy which results from the momentum possessed by the diatomic; in this case HF, contributes more and is more significant in the reaction between HF and F. Conversely, when considering the exothermic process; H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and F, the translational motion of the Fluorine atom is more significant.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792569</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792569"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:42:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 9: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: MEP - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly momentum was changed so that a succesful reaction was created to be able to study it.&lt;br /&gt;
As we determined previously, the overall forward reaction is exothermic, and overall energy is being conserved. The excess energy that the products possess is converted into a large amount of vibrational energy within the HF molecule and can be seen distinctively from the PES and the contour plot depicted below.&lt;br /&gt;
From an energy vs time plot, it is shown that total energy is constant and that it is always the sum of the combinations in potential and kinetic energies within the system.&lt;br /&gt;
The momentum vs time plot illustrates the large amount of momentum present in the product after the reaction proceded further indicating the vast amount of vibrational energy present. This extra vibrational energy is the source of heat which is released upon exothermic reactions hence a way to confirm this reaction completion could be calorimetry in order to quantify the amount of energy liberated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn surfaceplot.png|thumb|center|Figure 8: PES of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn momentavstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 9: Momentum vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn energyvstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 10: Energy vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn.png|thumb|center|Figure 11: Contour plot of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Polanyi rules, state that vibrational energy is more efficient in promoting a late-barrier reaction than translational energy. &#039;&#039;(Z. Zhang ,Y. Zhou, D. H. Zhang, G. Czakó, J. M. Bowman,J. Phys. Chem. Lett.2012,3,23,pp3416-3419)&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792554</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792554"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:40:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 8: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: MEP - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly momentum was changed so that a succesful reaction was created to be able to study it.&lt;br /&gt;
As we determined previously, the overall forward reaction is exothermic, and overall energy is being conserved. The excess energy that the products possess is converted into a large amount of vibrational energy within the HF molecule and can be seen distinctively from the PES and the contour plot depicted below.&lt;br /&gt;
From an energy vs time plot, it is shown that total energy is constant and that it is always the sum of the combinations in potential and kinetic energies within the system.&lt;br /&gt;
The momentum vs time plot illustrates the large amount of momentum present in the product after the reaction proceded further indicating the vast amount of vibrational energy present. This extra vibrational energy is the source of heat which is released upon exothermic reactions hence a way to confirm this reaction completion could be calorimetry in order to quantify the amount of energy liberated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn surfaceplot.png|thumb|center|Figure 8: PES of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn momentavstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 9: Momentum vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn energyvstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 10: Energy vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn.png|thumb|center|Figure 11: Contour plot of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Completed_hf_rctn.png&amp;diff=792546</id>
		<title>File:Ck Completed hf rctn.png</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Completed_hf_rctn.png&amp;diff=792546"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:39:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792545</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792545"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:38:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 8: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: MEP - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly momentum was changed so that a succesful reaction was created to be able to study it.&lt;br /&gt;
As we determined previously, the overall forward reaction is exothermic, and overall energy is being conserved. The excess energy that the products possess is converted into a large amount of vibrational energy within the HF molecule and can be seen distinctively from the PES and the contour plot depicted below.&lt;br /&gt;
From an energy vs time plot, it is shown that total energy is constant and that it is always the sum of the combinations in potential and kinetic energies within the system.&lt;br /&gt;
The momentum vs time plot illustrates the large amount of momentum present in the product after the reaction proceded further indicating the vast amount of vibrational energy present. This extra vibrational energy is the source of heat which is released upon exothermic reactions hence a way to confirm this reaction completion could be calorimetry in order to quantify the amount of energy liberated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn surfaceplot.png|thumb|center|Figure 8: PES of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn momentavstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 9: Momentum vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn energyvstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 10: Energy vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792510</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792510"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:35:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 8: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: MEP - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly momentum was changed so that a succesful reaction was created to be able to study it.&lt;br /&gt;
As we determined previously, the overall forward reaction is exothermic, and overall energy is being conserved. The excess energy that the products possess is converted into a large amount of vibrational energy within the HF molecule and can be seen distinctively from the PES depicted below.&lt;br /&gt;
From an energy vs time plot, it is shown that total energy is constant and that it is always the sum of the combinations in potential and kinetic energies within the system.&lt;br /&gt;
The momentum vs time plot illustrates the large amount of momentum present in the product after the reaction proceded further indicating the vast amount of vibrational energy present. This extra vibrational energy is the source of heat which is released upon exothermic reactions hence a way to confirm this reaction completion could be calorimetry in order to quantify the amount of energy liberated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn surfaceplot.png|thumb|center|Figure 8: PES of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn momentavstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 9: Momentum vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn energyvstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 10: Energy vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792477</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792477"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:31:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 8: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: MEP - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly momentum was changed so that a succesful reaction was created to be able to study it.&lt;br /&gt;
As we determined previously, the overall forward reaction is exothermic, and overall energy is being conserved. The excess energy that the products possess is converted into a large amount of vibrational energy within the HF molecule and can be seen distinctively from the PES depicted below.&lt;br /&gt;
From an energy vs time plot, it is shown that total energy is constant and that it is always the sum of the combinations in potential and kinetic energies within the system.&lt;br /&gt;
The momentum vs time plot illustrates the large amount of momentum present in the product after the reaction proceded further indicating the vast amount of vibrational energy present.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn surfaceplot.png|thumb|center|Figure 8: PES of completed H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn momentavstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 9: Momentum vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Completed hf rctn energyvstime.png|thumb|center|Figure 10: Energy vs Time plo of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + F --&amp;gt; HF + H reaction.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792447</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792447"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:28:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 8: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: MEP - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly momentum was changed so that a succesful reaction was created to be able to study it.&lt;br /&gt;
As we determined previously, the overall forward reaction is exothermic, and overall energy is being conserved. The excess energy that the products possess is converted into a large amount of vibrational energy within the HF molecule and can be seen distinctively from the PES depicted below.&lt;br /&gt;
From an energy vs time plot, it is shown that total energy is constant and that it is always the sum of the combinations in potential and kinetic energies within the system.&lt;br /&gt;
The momentum vs time plot illustrates the large amount of momentum present in the product after the reaction proceded further indicating the vast amount of vibrational energy present.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
File:Ck Completed hf rctn surfaceplot.png&lt;br /&gt;
File:Ck Completed hf rctn momentavstime.png&lt;br /&gt;
File:Ck Completed hf rctn energyvstime.png&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Completed_hf_rctn_energyvstime.png&amp;diff=792445</id>
		<title>File:Ck Completed hf rctn energyvstime.png</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Completed_hf_rctn_energyvstime.png&amp;diff=792445"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:28:34Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Completed_hf_rctn_momentavstime.png&amp;diff=792441</id>
		<title>File:Ck Completed hf rctn momentavstime.png</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Completed_hf_rctn_momentavstime.png&amp;diff=792441"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:28:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Completed_hf_rctn_surfaceplot.png&amp;diff=792436</id>
		<title>File:Ck Completed hf rctn surfaceplot.png</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Completed_hf_rctn_surfaceplot.png&amp;diff=792436"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:27:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792421</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792421"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:26:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 8: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: MEP - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly momentum was changed so that a succesful reaction was created to be able to study it.&lt;br /&gt;
As we determined previously, the overall forward reaction is exothermic, and overall energy is being conserved. The excess energy that the products possess is converted into a large amount of vibrational energy within the HF molecule and can be seen distinctively from the PES depicted below.&lt;br /&gt;
From an energy vs time plot, it is shown that total energy is constant and that it is always the sum of the combinations in potential and kinetic energies within the system.&lt;br /&gt;
The momentum vs time plot illustrates the large amount of momentum present in the product after the reaction proceded further indicating the vast amount of vibrational energy present.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792346</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792346"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:18:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 7: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: MEP - Energy vs Time - reactant energy calculation.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792325</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792325"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:16:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 7: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792320</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792320"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:16:23Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 7: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png|thumb|centre|Figure 5: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Hf_activation_energy_mep.png&amp;diff=792312</id>
		<title>File:Ck Hf activation energy mep.png</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Hf_activation_energy_mep.png&amp;diff=792312"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T13:15:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792197</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792197"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T12:58:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 7: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792195</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792195"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T12:57:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 7: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792190</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792190"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T12:57:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 7: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792186</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792186"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T12:56:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 7: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792182</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792182"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T12:55:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 7: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9  Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7  Å as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
For the reverse reaction&#039;s activation energy to be calculated interatomic distance for r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to 1.8 Å and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; was set to -0.35 so that the reaction could proceed downhill towards the products side. Again an energy vs time graph confirmed the relative energy positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State energy = -103.752 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Reactants energy = -104.013 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
Products energy = -133.773 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore:&lt;br /&gt;
F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 104.013) = 0.261 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = (-103.752) - (- 133.773) = 30.021 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792126</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792126"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T12:39:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 7: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to be able to calculate activation energies, the energy position of the reactants and products had to be calculated. By measuring their differences in energy compared to the energy of the TS this could be done. By changing interatomic distances to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.9 and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.7 as to ensure that atoms aren&#039;t sitting on the TS and roll back to the reactants side, reactants energy could be deduced from an MEP energy vs time graph.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792088</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792088"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T12:26:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 6: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å. Initially a starting point was located after inspecting the contour plot to give a rough estimate of the TS position using the MEP. Then, the interatomic distances were altered until the shortest MEP trajectory was found confirming that the 2 r&#039;s (coordinates) on the plot were elucidating the position of the TS. The animation technique further confirmed the position as all three atoms were at rest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792077</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792077"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T12:21:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 6: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By conducting trial and error analysis the most accurate approximation for the position of the TS was found to be at r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;AB&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 1.812565 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;BC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.744841 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792065</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=792065"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T12:19:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 5: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strength of the newly formed H-F bond compared to the initial H-H bond. An exothermic reaction releases energy to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791960</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791960"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T11:37:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; --&amp;gt; H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strenght of the newly formed H-F bond than the initial H-H bond.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791959</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791959"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T11:36:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 5: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H2 and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By inspection of the potenial energy surface below it can be deduced that the potential well decreases in energy as reacion progresses showing that the forward reaction is exothermic ( F + H2 and H + HF ) and that the backward reaction is endothermic. This is because the products are at a lower energy than reactants, suggesting the stabily and strenght of the newly formed H-F bond than the initial H-H bond.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791953</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791953"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T11:30:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 4: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 3rd assumption is one we can associate to the calculation conducted above. These assumptions explain the rate of reaction but predicted rate is not in agreement with the above. TST prompts a classical view of the situtation where as when considering quantum mechanical effects theory and experiment are in disagreement. As illustrated by reaction 4, the reactants can overcome the TS to form a products but also rolled back on themselves to dissociate back into reactans, something that TST does not predict. This is a manifestation of quantum mechanical tunneling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H2 and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:3008&amp;diff=791927</id>
		<title>MRD:3008</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:3008&amp;diff=791927"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T11:14:07Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==EXERCISE 1: H + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; system==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A transition state represents a maximum, in the minimum energy reaction path linking the reactants and products.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Mathematically it is defined as a saddle point and essentially depends on two parameters r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;. &lt;br /&gt;
This mathematically means that the following conditions need to be satisfied:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0 &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0 &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
where x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Although a local minimum or a local maximum would satisfy condition 1 , they would not satisfy condition 2, and this is what &lt;br /&gt;
differentiates them from the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition state geometry was found in a trial and error process and the optimal distance was &lt;br /&gt;
recorded to 4 d.p. Unsurprisingly the transition state was found to be symmetrical with an equal &lt;br /&gt;
distance between the atoms, r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0.9076 Å. &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot illustrates this very well, since as it can be seen that &lt;br /&gt;
a straight line graph is obtained for both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and not an oscillating&lt;br /&gt;
one. This indicates that the distances remain unchanged over time and that there is no kinetic energy&lt;br /&gt;
i.e. all is potential. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:H2TS ps817.png|500px|thumb|“Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot|centre]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Comment on how the mep and the trajectory you just calculated differ.===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MEP trajectory is smoother than the MD trajectory and thus is due to the way MEP works. &lt;br /&gt;
Any deviation from the transition state will result into the atoms &#039;rolling down&#039; the potential&lt;br /&gt;
surface and of course gain momentum as that happens. In MEP before each step the momenta are set &lt;br /&gt;
to zero, so the momentum gained by rolling down the PES is not taken into account. In both cases &lt;br /&gt;
the distance between the initially slightly displaced H atom increases as it moves away from the&lt;br /&gt;
H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;. But , the MD calculation shows that indeed the atoms just just simply more, they also oscillate&lt;br /&gt;
in the molecule following the curvature of the PES in that region. On the other hand, as explained&lt;br /&gt;
above the MEP calculation yields a smooth non-oscillating path.Also note that the free H atom in MEP move&lt;br /&gt;
a shorter distance since any momentum gained in MD rolling down the PES is absent here.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:MD ps817.png|450px|thumb|MEP|left]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:MEP ps817.png|450px|thumb|MD|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?===&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+ &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|p1 || p2 || Etot || Reactive? || Description of the dynamics || Illustration of the trajectory 				&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
||&#039;&#039;-1.25&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
||&#039;&#039;-2.5&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
||-99.018&lt;br /&gt;
||YES&lt;br /&gt;
||The transition state is successfully reached and crossed to form the products,with some vibrational energy in&lt;br /&gt;
the molecule causing it to oscillate&lt;br /&gt;
||[[File:1table ps817.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
||&#039;&#039;-1.5&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
||&#039;&#039;-2.0&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
||-100.456&lt;br /&gt;
||NO&lt;br /&gt;
||The momentum distribution inputted into the system is not sufficient for a successful reaction, thus the free H atom simple bounces off the molecule and the transition state is never reached, remaining in the channel represented by the reactants. Some vibrational motion is present in the molecule. &lt;br /&gt;
||[[File:2table ps817.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
||&#039;&#039;-1.5&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
||&#039;&#039;-2.5&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
||-98.956&lt;br /&gt;
||YES&lt;br /&gt;
||The transition state is successfully reached and crossed to form the products. The vibrational energy of the resulting molecule in this case, denoted by the degree of oscillation in the region denoted as products appears to be slightly greater that the first reaction &lt;br /&gt;
||[[File:3table ps817.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
||&#039;&#039;-2.5&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
||&#039;&#039;-5.0&lt;br /&gt;
||-84.956&lt;br /&gt;
||NO&lt;br /&gt;
||The excessive amount of momentum in the initial setup, causes the product channel to be crossed momentarily , not precisely via the TS which could indicate some quantum mechanical tunnelling. A new molecule is briefly formed but it is very unstable with a very high degree in vibrational energy. As it can be seen this causes the newly formed bond to break and the transition state to be recrossed where the original H atoms join up to form the molecule, that now has a very large degree of vibrational energy. &lt;br /&gt;
||[[File:4table ps817.png|200px]] &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
||&#039;&#039;-2.5&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
||&#039;&#039;-5.2&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
||-83.416&lt;br /&gt;
||YES&lt;br /&gt;
||Quantum mechanical tunnelling is observed here as well due to the excessive amount of momentum in the initial setup. The HF molecule is briefly formed but it is very unstable with a very high degree in vibrational energy.The formed bond is broken and the  the transition state to be recrossed where the original H atoms join up to form the molecule, just like in reaction 4. However this time, the energy in the system is just enough for a third TS recrossing and thus the reaction goes to completion after some time, producing HF with lots of vibrational energy&lt;br /&gt;
||[[File:5table ps817.png|200px]] &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded from the table that not any combination of momenta will result into products.&lt;br /&gt;
The relative distribution of the momenta between atom and molecule will affect the reactivity. Hence whether a lot of energy is given to the atom colliding with the diatomic or whether the diatomic itself possesses a lot of vibrational energy affects the reactivity. Not&lt;br /&gt;
any combination of momenta in the region stated in the script will work. Also as it can be seen from&lt;br /&gt;
reaction 4, excessive kinetic energy will not necessarily lead to successful reaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?===&lt;br /&gt;
Transition state theory relies on three key assumptions in its derivation.&#039;&#039;(Levine Physical Chemistry 6th Edition)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.This reaction exists as an equilibrium because we assume that not every collision results in the formation of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants cross the transition state hyperspace, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last assumption in the one that is more relevant to the calculations above. As seen in reaction  4 , this is clearly going against the assumption, as it illustrates a case of barrier recrossing. In this case even though the reactants became the transition state, they collapse back to the reactants, making the initial conditions unsuitable for a successful reaction.As a result, ignoring the effect of recrossing would over estimate the reaction rate for some reactions, such as this one.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to note that the transition state theory assumes that the reactants actually have to follow the reaction trajectory and pass through the transition state point. However in reaction 4,quantum mechanical tunnelling goes against it. Additionally,  multiple TS recrossing just like in reaction 5 might still lead to an overall successful reaction, but the time taken is will be greater. Thus if this effect is also ignored, just like above, the reaction rate will be over estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==EXERCISE 2: H-F-H system==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved.Locate the approximate position of the transition state. ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As it can be seen from the potential energy surface plot below, the reaction F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF is&lt;br /&gt;
exothermic and releases energy, since the products are lower in potential energy than the reactants. This of course&lt;br /&gt;
means that the backwards reaction is endothermic.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Surface Plot ps817.png|450px|thumb|PES F-H-H system|left]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Surface Plot ps817 (2).png|450px|thumb|PES F-H-H system|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;  &amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the H-F bond is stronger than the H-H bond, thus when the reaction process in the defined forwards&lt;br /&gt;
direction energy is released to the environment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The approximate coordinates of the Transition State F-H-H are, r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;F-H&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=1.8127 Å and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;H-H&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0.7443 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
Initially an approximate guess was made by simply examining the energy contour plot to locate a starting point. Then values&lt;br /&gt;
close to the initial guess we inputted in the calculation until a transition state was obtained. This was confirmed by an &lt;br /&gt;
animation where all three atoms were not moving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Report the activation energy for both reactions.===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To obtain the thermodynamic data for both reactions the reactant and product system had to be studied. By choosing appropriate parameters of the system with geometries on &#039;either side&#039; of the transition state barrier and using the transition state energy(-103.752 kcal/mol) the energies of reactants and products were obtained.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:2Product energy ps817.png|300px|thumb|Calculation of reactant energy(MD)|left]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Product energy ps817.png|300px|thumb|Calculation of reactant energy(MD)-zoom|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Reactant energy ps817.png|300px|thumb|Calculation of reactant energy(MEP)|centre]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This allowed for the calculation of ΔE of the reaction and the activation energies:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1)F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; ΔΕ=-29.558 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;= +0.249 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)H + HF ----&amp;gt; F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; ΔΕ=+29.558 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;= +29.807 kcal/mol&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As stated above the reaction F + H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF is an exothermic reaction. However the excess energy of the reaction is not wasted but conserved. This energy is converted in vibrational energy in the H-F bond and it can be seen quite distinctly by the large amount of oscillations in the contour energy plot, indicating high degree of vibration. Furthermore the plot of Energy vs Time and Momenta vs Time clearly shows that the large interchange of kinetic and potential energy and the large increase in the H-F bond momentum after the reaction. Both are indicative of the increase in vibrational energy in the bond.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Contour ps817.png|300px|thumb|Contour energy plot F+ H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy ps817.png|300px|thumb|Energy vs Time|left]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Momenta ps817.png|300px|thumb|Momenta vs Time|centre]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In the large scale, one potential way to measure this increase in vibrational energy could in principle FTIR spectroscopy by monitoring the decay of the vibration through the course of time. Alternatively another way could be calorimetry since eventually this excess vibrational energy is dissipated in the surroundings, raising the temperature of water in a calorimetric measurement(an exothermic reaction!)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Polanyi rules, which state that vibrational energy is more efficient in promoting a late-barrier reaction&lt;br /&gt;
than translational energy.&#039;&#039;(Z. Zhang ,Y. Zhou, D. H. Zhang, G. Czakó, J. M. Bowman,J. Phys. Chem. Lett.2012,3,23,pp3416-3419)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A late barrier reaction, by the Hammond postulate effectively means an endothermic reaction, and in this case the H + HF ----&amp;gt;H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;+ F system.&lt;br /&gt;
A reaction with initial parameters p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0.1, r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0.9 Å, p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=-5, r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=1 Å , did not prove to be a reactive trajectory, as it can be seen from the contour plot below&lt;br /&gt;
More over, increasing the momentum, in excessively high amounts above the activation energy did not yield a successsful reaction. Showing that the activation energy is not the only criterion that need to be met.&lt;br /&gt;
To test the rule above, the reaction was repeated with initial parameters p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=5, r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0.9 Å, p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0, r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=1 Å. As expected that indeed gave a successful reaction as shown by the second contour plot.&lt;br /&gt;
So as Polanyi rightly states, for the endothermic reaction, it is much more efficient to have the required activation energy in the form of vibrations, ie high values of p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, rather than high values of translational energy of the incoming atom ie high p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Initial endo ps817.png|450px|thumb|Unreactive H + HF ----&amp;gt;H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;+ F |right]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Endo reactive ps817.png|450px|thumb|Reactive H + HF ----&amp;gt;H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;+ F|left]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
To examine the validity of these rule in an early transition state, the reverse exothermic reaction F+ H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF was tested.Initially the set system was set up as  p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=-0.5, r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=2 Å, p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=-5, r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0.74 Å. This did not yield a successful reaction, despite having enough energy in the form of vibration in the H-H bond. Decreasing the momentum of bond vibration first to p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=-2 and then to p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=2, gave a successful reaction in both cases, illustrating that indeed a lower energy in vibration is more effective in the conversion of reactants to products in this endothermic reaction.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Initial exo ps817.png|300px|thumb|Unreactive F+ H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + H, p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=-5F|left]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Initial exo minus 2 reactive ps817.png|300px|thumb|Reactive F+ H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF, p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=-2|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Initial exo plus 2 reactive ps817.png|300px|thumb|Reactive F+ H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF, p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=2|centre]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, varying the amount of momentum of the colliding F atom from p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=-1 to p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=-2 and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=-3, with initial parameters r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=2 Å, p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0, r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0.74 Å, further complies with the rules. For p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=-1 it was unreactive but as the momentum of F atom increased to -2 and -3, the pathways became reactive, showing that indeed for exothermic reactions the best way to get a successful conversion is to put the energy in translational motion and not vibrations.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Exo unreactive minus 1 transl ps817.png|300px|thumb|Unreactive F+ H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF,p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=-1|left]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Exo unreactive minus 3 transl ps817.png|300px|thumb|Reactive F+ H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF, p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=-3|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Exo unreactive minus 2 transl ps817.png|300px|thumb|Reactive F+ H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; ----&amp;gt; H + HF,p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;HF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=-2|centre]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791926</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791926"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T11:13:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Question 4: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition State Theory (TST) consists of 3 main assumptions for its derivation.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Reactants are in constant equilibrium with the transition state structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;The energy of the particles follow a Boltzmann distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt;Once reactants become the transition state, the transition state structure does not collapse back to the reactants.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ul&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H2 and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791922</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791922"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T11:07:07Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Reactive and unreactive trajectories */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H2 and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791921</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791921"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T11:06:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Reactive and unreactive trajectories */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the HF molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be concluded that for a successful reaction to occur, the combined momenta p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; must match. As a result the variations of energies that either the single atom or the diatomic possess, will affect the reactivity greatly. A notable point is that a great amount of energy does not necessarily mean that a reaction will go to completion as illustrated by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H2 and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791911</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791911"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T10:57:23Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Reactive and unreactive trajectories */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || A very similar setup to reaction 4, an excess amount of combined momenta cause the HF molecule to form with extra vibrational energy resulting it to be unstable allows for the molecule to pass the TS in the opposite direction again causing it to dissociate. In this case however, the newly formed reactants from dissociation have sufficient energy to afford another trip towards the TS, leading to a successful reaction with the newly formed products containing a vast amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H2 and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791899</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791899"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T10:51:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Reactive and unreactive trajectories */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || Momentum combinations in this process are very large. As a result the reactants are able to reach the TS and overcome it but the newly formed product contains so much extra vibrational energy and hence really unstable causing it to dissociate back to the reactants, passing the TS once again from the opposite direction. Reactants now possess a huge amount of vibrational energy. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H2 and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791891</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791891"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T10:47:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Reactive and unreactive trajectories */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || This is a very similar combination of momenta to the first reaction. Having a greater momentum for p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; causes the system to oscillate (higher vibrational energy) more, resulting in a succesfull reaction, overcoming the TS and products having a greater vibrational energy than reactants. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H2 and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791889</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791889"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T10:45:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Reactive and unreactive trajectories */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || Reactants have enough vibrational energy prior to reaching the TS. However, the combined momenta aren&#039;t enough for the reactants to overcome the TS successfully causing a collision between the 2 molecules and they bounce off without the reaction proceeding. Some vibration energy is still present in the reactants post collision. || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H2 and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791884</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791884"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T10:42:54Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Reactive and unreactive trajectories */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || Reactants have enough energy to manage to overpass the TS (roll up the saddle point smoothly) succesfully with extra energy being transforemed into vibrations of the resulting products || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H2 and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791855</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791855"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T10:11:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Reactive and unreactive trajectories */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H2 and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Rvsu_trajectories_5.png&amp;diff=791854</id>
		<title>File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 5.png</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=File:Ck_Rvsu_trajectories_5.png&amp;diff=791854"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T10:11:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791853</id>
		<title>MRD:ck2917</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://chemwiki.ch.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=MRD:ck2917&amp;diff=791853"/>
		<updated>2019-05-24T10:10:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ck2917: /* Reactive and unreactive trajectories */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== MRD WIKI REPORT ==&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Molecular Reaction Dynamics in Triatomic Systems&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 1: H + H2 system ===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 1: ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a potential energy surface diagram, how is the transition state mathematically defined? How can the transition state be identified, and how can it be distinguished from a local minimum of the potential energy surface?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical definition of a transition state on a potential energy surface is defined as a maximum saddle point (or point of inflection) or the saddle point where the minimum energy pathway is at a maximum. A condtion for it to occur is when r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; which is seen on the internuclear distance vs time graph as it is a function of both.&lt;br /&gt;
The following conditions must be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0  and  V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;y&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;=0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xx&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;yy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;-(V&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;xy&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
let: x=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y=r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be distinguished by a local minimum as they both satisfy the first conditon however a local min will not satisfy the second conditon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time 1st rctn.png|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Intermolecular distance vs Time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 2: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report your best estimate of the transition state position (rts) and explain your reasoning illustrating it with a “Internuclear Distances vs Time” plot for a relevant trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closest value to zero energy change in order to locate the transition state geometry was estimated to r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ts&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = 0.9079 Å.&lt;br /&gt;
This was done by trial and error analysis by observing the Internuclear Distances vs Time plot by altering the internuclear distances by small increments while keeping them equal to eachother and keeping momentum of the two at zero. &lt;br /&gt;
From the graph below it can be see that no vibrations are present as both r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ab&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;bc&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are presented by straight lines. Hence allowing for the deduction that as the internuclear distances remain unchanged with time, the only type of energy present is potenial energy (no KE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Internuclear distance vs time equalr.png|thumb|centre|Figure 2: Intermolecular distance vs Time at equal r.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 3: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Comment on how the MEP and the trajectory you just calculated differ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An MEP trajectory is smoother than in the dynamic trajectory upon comparing the two contour plots. Since the MEP is a trajectory ignoring the momenta of atoms that would be gained by deviations from the TS and also their velocities, KE = 0. Therefore, as atoms would &#039;roll down&#039; with deviations from the TS, their momentum gained is negligible, and no kinetic energy present to cause the atom to travel, it does not oscillate and hence the smooth trajectory presented. By using the dynamic approach, a more realistic motion is illustrated for atomic motion since their is a non-zero momentum present. This results in oscillations / vibrations of the atom which is present in the figure below. Also note that in the MEP approach the molecule travels a smaller distance in the potential energy surface as momentum is lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ck Contour plot1 mep.png|thumb|center|Figure 3: Contour plot of MEP calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]] [[File:Ck Contour plot1.png|thumb|center|Figure 4: Contour plot of dynamically calculated reaction of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and H.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Reactive and unreactive trajectories====&lt;br /&gt;
Complete the table above by adding the total energy, whether the trajectory is reactive or unreactive, and provide a plot of the trajectory and a small description for what happens along the trajectory. What can you conclude from the table?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; border=1&lt;br /&gt;
! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! p&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! E&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tot&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; !! Reactive? !! Description of the dynamics !! Illustration of the trajectory&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.25 || -2.5  || -99.018 || Yes || || [[File:Christos Rvsu trajectories 1.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.0  || -100.456 || No || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 2.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -1.5  || -2.5  || -98.956 || Yes || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 3.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.0  || -84.956 || No || || [[File:Ck Rvsu trajectories 4.png|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| -2.5  || -5.2  || -83.416 || Yes || ||&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 4: ====&lt;br /&gt;
State what are the main assumptions of Transition State Theory. Given the results you have obtained, how will Transition State Theory predictions for reaction rate values compare with experimental values?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== EXERCISE 2: F - H - H system ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 5: ====&lt;br /&gt;
By inspecting the potential energy surfaces, classify the F + H2 and H + HF reactions according to their energetics (endothermic or exothermic). How does this relate to the bond strength of the chemical species involved?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 6: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Locate the approximate position of the transition state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 7: ====&lt;br /&gt;
Report the activation energy for both reactions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 8: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the fact that energy is conserved, discuss the mechanism of release of the reaction energy. Explain how this could be confirmed experimentally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Question 9: ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discuss how the distribution of energy between different modes (translation and vibration) affect the efficiency of the reaction, and how this is influenced by the position of the transition state.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ck2917</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>