Quasiclassical Differential Cross Sections for Reactive Scattering of H + H2 on Leps and Porter-Karplus Potential Surfaces

  • Andrew D. Jorgensen
  • Eric A. Hillenbrand
  • Eric A. Gislason


The determination of the reactive differential cross section I(θ) from quasiclassical trajectory calculations has been reviewed by Truhlar and Muckerman.1 Two procedures have been used in the past to display the cross section. The first is the histogram method. One serious problem with this method is that a continuous function I(θ) is being approximated by a discontinous histogram. In addition, there are problems with choosing the locations and widths of the angular bins.2 The second procedure is to expand I(θ) in a series of Legendre polynomials.3-5 However, there are also problems with this method. First, it isn’t certain at what point to truncate the series to minimize the uncertainty in I(θ). In addition, there is no simple expression for the uncertainty in the differential cross section. Because of these problems only a small number of comparisons of differential cross sections for different potential energy surfaces have been made.


Potential Energy Surface Differential Cross Section Reactive Trajectory Fourier Sine Series Quasiclassical Trajectory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. G. Truhlar and J. T. Muckerman, Reactive scattering cross sections III: Quasiclassical and semiclassical methods, in: “Atom-Molecule Collision Theory”, R. B. Bernstein, ed., Plenum, New York (1979), p. 505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. B. Faist, The uniform phase space representation of product state distributions of elementary chemical reactions, J. Chem. Phys. 65: 5427 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. G. Truhlar and N. C. Blais, Legendre moment method for calculating differential scattering cross sections from classical trajectories with Monte Carlo initial conditions, J. Chem. Phys. 67: 1532 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. C. Blais and D. G. Truhlar, Monte Carlo trajectories: Alignment of HBr rotational angular momentum as a function of scattering angle for the reaction H + Br2 → HBr + Br, J. Chem. Phys. 67: 1540 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. A. Gislason and J. G. Sachs, Expansion of differential cross sections determined from classical trajectory studies in a series of Legendre polynomials, Chem. Phys. Lett. 52: 270 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. A. Gislason and A. Kosmas, Expansion of the differential cross section determined from a classical trajectory study in a Fourier sine series, to be published.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. W. Hamming, The frequency approach to numerical analysis, in: “Studies in Numerical Analysis”, B. K. P. Scarfe, ed., Academic, London (1974), p. 151.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. G. Truhlar and R. E. Wyatt, History of H3 kinetics, Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. 27: 1 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. R. Mayne and J. P. Toennies, Quasiclassical cross sections for the H + H2(0,0) → H + H2 reaction: Comparison of the Siegbahn-Liu-Truhlar-Horowitz and Porter-Karplus potential surfaces, J. Chem. Phys. 70: 5314 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. N. Porter and M. Karplus, Potential energy surface for H3, J. Chem. Phys. 40: 1105 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Siegbahn and B. Liu, An accurate three-dimensional potential energy surface for H3, J. Chem. Phys. 68: 2457 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. G. Truhlar and C. J. Horowitz, Functional representation of Liu and Siegbahn’s accurate Ab initio potential energy calculations for H + H2, J. Chem. Phys. 68: 2466 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Sato, On a new method of drawing the potential energy surface, J. Chem. Phys. 23: 592 (1955).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. E. Weston, Activated complex and the rate of reaction of hydrogen atoms with hydrogen molecules, J. Chem. Phys. 31: 892 (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Chapman, D. L. Bunker, and A. Gelb, A + BC, QCPE 11: 273 (1975).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. P. Huber, G. Herzberg, “Molecular Spectra and Molecular Structure. IV. Constants of Diatomic Molecules”, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Karplus, R. N. Porter, and R. D. Sharma, Exchange reactions with activation energy. I. Simple barrier potential for (H,H2), J. Chem. Phys. 43: 3259 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew D. Jorgensen
    • 1
  • Eric A. Hillenbrand
    • 1
  • Eric A. Gislason
    • 2
  1. 1.Indiana State University EvansvilleEvansvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryUniversity of Illinois at Chicago CircleChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations