-
1
-
-
0012276347
-
-
Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn: Braunschweig
-
Clausius, R. Die Mechanische Wärmetheorie; Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn: Braunschweig, 1879; Vol. II, p 62.
-
(1879)
Die Mechanische Wärmetheorie
, vol.2
, pp. 62
-
-
Clausius, R.1
-
14
-
-
4344681449
-
-
J. Chem. Phys
-
J. Chem. Phys. 2004, 121, 3349.
-
(2004)
, vol.121
, pp. 3349
-
-
-
16
-
-
25444527189
-
-
J. Chem. Phys
-
J. Chem. Phys. 2005, 123, 111103.
-
(2005)
, vol.123
, pp. 111103
-
-
-
24
-
-
84947396513
-
-
Levesque, D.; Patey, G. N.; Weis, J. J. Mol. Phys. 1977, 34, 1077.
-
(1977)
Mol. Phys
, vol.34
, pp. 1077
-
-
Levesque, D.1
Patey, G.N.2
Weis, J.J.3
-
25
-
-
84934408833
-
-
Adams, D. J.; Adams, E. M.; Hills, G. J. Mol. Phys. 1979, 38, 387.
-
(1979)
Mol. Phys
, vol.38
, pp. 387
-
-
Adams, D.J.1
Adams, E.M.2
Hills, G.J.3
-
28
-
-
84912770573
-
-
Neumann, M.; Steinhauser, O.; Pawley, G. S. Mol. Phys. 1984, 52, 97.
-
(1984)
Mol. Phys
, vol.52
, pp. 97
-
-
Neumann, M.1
Steinhauser, O.2
Pawley, G.S.3
-
33
-
-
70449421704
-
Molecular Dynamics and Monte Carlo Calculations on Water
-
Centre Europeen de Calcul Atomique et Moleculaire: Orsay, France
-
Berendsen, H. J. C. Molecular Dynamics and Monte Carlo Calculations on Water; CECAM Report; Centre Europeen de Calcul Atomique et Moleculaire: Orsay, France, 1972.
-
(1972)
CECAM Report
-
-
Berendsen, H.J.C.1
-
34
-
-
0000290486
-
-
Powles, J. G.; Fowler, R. F.; Evans, W. A. B. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1984, 107, 280.
-
(1984)
Chem. Phys. Lett
, vol.107
, pp. 280
-
-
Powles, J.G.1
Fowler, R.F.2
Evans, W.A.B.3
-
39
-
-
33645740325
-
-
Kumar, P.; Franzese, G.; Buldyrev, S. V.; Stanley, H. E. Phys. Rev. E 2006, 73, 041505.
-
(2006)
Phys. Rev. E
, vol.73
, pp. 041505
-
-
Kumar, P.1
Franzese, G.2
Buldyrev, S.V.3
Stanley, H.E.4
-
41
-
-
84906405471
-
-
Israelachvili, J. Intermolecular and Surface Forces; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, 1996.
-
Israelachvili, J. Intermolecular and Surface Forces; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, 1996.
-
-
-
-
42
-
-
5744249209
-
-
Metropolis, N. A.; Rosenbluth, A. W.; Rosenbluth, N. M.; Teller, A.; Teller, E. J. Chem. Phys. 1953, 21, 1087.
-
(1953)
J. Chem. Phys
, vol.21
, pp. 1087
-
-
Metropolis, N.A.1
Rosenbluth, A.W.2
Rosenbluth, N.M.3
Teller, A.4
Teller, E.5
-
43
-
-
84906376533
-
-
The autocorrelation function for the total dipole moment of the droplet is defined through Φ(t, 〈M(0)·M(t) 〉/〈M2〉, where M(0) is the total dipole moment of the at the time 0 (Monte Carlo step 0) and M(t) is the total dipole moment after t Monte Carlo steps. M is the length ofthe dipole moment vector. Φ(t) is the autocorrelation function for the individual dipoles and is defined as the average value of the of Φ i/(t, 〈μi(0) ·μi(t)〉/〈μ2〉, where μi in a similar way is the dipole moment of dipole number i. The displacement of a particle from its position at time 0 can be calculated using Fick's law, R2, 6Dt, where D is the diffusion constant and t is the time. This means that if the average value of the displacement of the molecules is calculated as
-
2 = 6Dt, where D is the diffusion constant and t is the time. This means that if the average value of the displacement of the molecules is calculated as a function of the number of Monte Carlo steps/particle a straight line should be obtained in the limit of many Monte Carlo steps for a bulk system. For the droplet studied here we will anyway obtain a straight line since the displacement is small compared to the droplet dimension.
-
-
-
-
46
-
-
0037769911
-
-
Wang, Z.; Holm, C.; Muller, H. W. J. Chem. Phys. 2003, 119, 379.
-
(2003)
J. Chem. Phys
, vol.119
, pp. 379
-
-
Wang, Z.1
Holm, C.2
Muller, H.W.3
-
47
-
-
84906405470
-
-
There is a small difference between the average curve in Figure 5b and the curve describing the same system in Figure 4e. The origin of the difference is due to that the curve in Figure 4e is averaged over all equilibrated conformations, whereas the data presented in Figure 5, parts a and b, are sampled over a smaller subset.
-
There is a small difference between the average curve in Figure 5b and the curve describing the same system in Figure 4e. The origin of the difference is due to that the curve in Figure 4e is averaged over all equilibrated conformations, whereas the data presented in Figure 5, parts a and b, are sampled over a smaller subset.
-
-
-
|