-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
/
Copy pathissues_with_Landolt-Börnstein.txt
26 lines (21 loc) · 4.19 KB
/
issues_with_Landolt-Börnstein.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2019 Vogt:
- H2I2Si diagram is not as non-planar as Sichao's version of the diagram.
- CFO2 diagram has 1 single and 1 double bond, but the table has two double bonds. Also, what atoms are involved in the angle that was given?
- Br2Fe is confusing in many ways. Br...Br would usually indicate Van der Waals interactions, but here it's just the distance between two atoms that are not "bonded". Did they get the distance from vibrational spectroscopy? Then why are they saying they are not bonded (what does it even mean to be bonded)? Also, it's confusing that Br-Br is not double Fe-Br, until you notice that there's also a Br-Fe-Br angle despite the diagram being linear. I didn't notice the footnote next to Dooh until I was already confused. Ideally there would be two separate diagrams, and two separate point groups given with equal font size, rather than C2v just mentioned in a "comment". Dotted line for CH3NOS is extremely confusing!
- H2I2 the dotted line is not the distance given, which confused me. Why no dotted lines for HeN2O?
- CBF3O this seems like it's a Van der Waals complex from the "Lewis formula" but not from the diagram, althoug there's a dotted line when listing bond lengths, but it's like the Br...Br one described in a point above, not the typical Van der Waals dotted line. But dotted line for CH3NOS is extremely confusing!
- Colors for atoms are not conventional?
- bond lengths/angles seem to be presented in an arbitrary order rather than the system that I've been using.
25A
- ClH2P (molecule 287), no diagram given, and "chlorophosphane" doesn't appear on Google (the original paper did call it chlorophosphane). The paper never mentions C2v, only Cs and C3v, and they did the geometry optimization under the constraint of it being Cs.
- F2S2 (molecule 535), the diagram looks planar but it's actually not: F atoms come out of page, or into page.
- HNOS (molecule 684), the "cis" next to Cs presumably helps us craete the z-matrix by telling us that it's not the Cs(trans) version, but it's unclear: it makes it look like Cs(cis) is a point group.
Kuchitsu?
- D3v point group for GeH3F
- H2Si2 (Justin's molecule), Sichao got confused and thought that Si-H-Si was not iscosceles, the 3D diagram was not good enoguh (we talked about it in the voice chat just now: 28 July, 7:30-7:50pm EST, it seems that it wasn't recorded though unfortunately... some discussion abotu it is in the 4-atom-molecules-paper thread in the HPQC Discord, but the discussion which convinced me that the diagram was extremely confusing to Sicaho, was in the voice channel).
- "G6" point group for methane, is actually called "G6 MS", otherwise it's impossible to know what group it is, without reading the original referenced paper (see #group-theory channel in the HPQC Discord server). Also C2H6O2 from 30A.
- "G4" point group: CHIO2 on pg 257 of 30A. Also C2H6KrO and C2H6NeO and C2H6NeS and C2H6S and C2H7ClO from the same book. Also in 28C there's C4H9N which says "G4 (equitorial gauche)" which is confusing: I think the "gauche" part has nothing to do with the G4 part, but I can look into it later.
- "G36" point group: C2H8ArSi from 30A
- CCl2S on pg 241 of Landolt-Bornstein 30A looks from the diagram to be in Cs but it says the ground state is C2v. Maybe if I had a better intuition for C2v I wouldn't have got so confused, but this really did lead me to a lot of confusion: https://discord.com/channels/929956709542293504/1107534379321933865/1128905475644199003 It would have been better if they had two diagrams, one for C2v and one for Cs. Don't list only 1 point group in the top-right corner, but then give a diagram for another one.
- F2O6S2 in 28A has G+G+ whereas C2H6S2Se has g+g+, it's an inconsistency that, for someone like me who didn't know what g+g+ was until a lot of Googling (and still haven't found the answer, but at least know that it's something common enough that a 4th year undergrad chemistry student probably knows it) throws me off and makes me wonder. In fact I'll be asking Hemanth whether or not it's the same, just to make sure. Hemanth said that they're the same, but then I found C4H9FO in 28C which has both G+ and g+.
It's all un-organized, you need to look at several books and may not know which book at which to look.