Skip to main content
26 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 11, 2020 at 10:20 history edited CommunityBot
Commonmark migration
Sep 30, 2017 at 19:12 answer added jheindel timeline score: 1
Sep 29, 2017 at 2:42 comment added Martin - マーチン When you are using the Gibbs energy, then the vibrational modes within the minimum are already considered, and the nuclei arrangement at angles slightly off the minimum correspond to vibrational distortions.
Sep 28, 2017 at 11:03 answer added user213305 timeline score: 1
Sep 27, 2017 at 16:06 comment added Tyberius @HernanMiraola by analogy, think of a two state system: you are in an airplane flying at a constant height or you are on a level stretch on the ground. You can pass between the two states and briefly be at a point that doesn't coincide with those two states. But you will rapidly collapse to one or the other. If you jump out of the plane, there is zero probability that you hang in the air somewhere in between the ground and the plane. The same is true if you jump from the ground. The space in between the states is not occupiable in this sense.
Sep 26, 2017 at 23:28 history tweeted twitter.com/StackChemistry/status/912821305543741440
Sep 26, 2017 at 22:35 comment added user43021 @Tyberius it is an occupiable state of the system, why not? It is a position of nucleus..
Sep 26, 2017 at 22:17 comment added Tyberius I think this is a good question because I would like to see a rigorous explanation of this. However, my intuition from the previous iteration of this question remains the same that the issue in how we define a state. I think the argument at the end of your post is invalid because it implicitly assumes that $150^{\circ}$ is an occupiable state of the system. The only way it would be at that configuration is a brief fluctuation of around the bottom of the $180^{\circ}$ well or en route to the $60^{\circ}$ well.
Sep 26, 2017 at 21:25 history edited user43021 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 6 characters in body
Sep 26, 2017 at 19:20 history edited user43021 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 1 character in body
Sep 26, 2017 at 16:46 history edited user43021 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 316 characters in body
Sep 26, 2017 at 16:30 history edited user43021 CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 79 characters in body
Sep 26, 2017 at 16:25 history edited user43021 CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 79 characters in body
Sep 26, 2017 at 16:24 comment added user43021 No, I mean, why estimate mean gibbs free energy as the sum of gibbs free energy of only most stable conformers?@a-cyclohexane-molecule. Thanks for the comments..
Sep 26, 2017 at 16:22 comment added a-cyclohexane-molecule Are you only considering global minima, then? In your question statement, you mention local minima, and I'm not sure to which you refer in the last part of your post.
Sep 26, 2017 at 16:01 history edited user43021 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 30 characters in body
Sep 26, 2017 at 15:54 history edited user43021 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 30 characters in body
Sep 26, 2017 at 15:48 history edited user43021 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 30 characters in body
Sep 26, 2017 at 15:43 comment added user43021 No, the last part of the post tries to explain that point.@a-cyclohexane-molecule
Sep 26, 2017 at 15:42 history edited user43021 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 30 characters in body
Sep 26, 2017 at 15:41 comment added a-cyclohexane-molecule It could be that the unstable conformers are so low a fraction of the species as to be negligible.
Sep 26, 2017 at 15:39 history edited user43021 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 30 characters in body
Sep 26, 2017 at 15:33 history edited user43021 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 11 characters in body
Sep 26, 2017 at 15:29 answer added obackhouse timeline score: 0
Sep 26, 2017 at 15:29 history edited user43021 CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 11 characters in body
Sep 26, 2017 at 14:58 history asked user43021 CC BY-SA 3.0