Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Forbid scission of opposite charges #266

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Forbid scission of opposite charges #266

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

alongd
Copy link
Member

@alongd alongd commented May 1, 2018

Scission of opposite charges forms two net charged species, and should be forbidden. Such pathway, if
allowed, should only occur through a different resonance structure of the species.

For example, one of the resonance structures of image is image.
Once RMG tries to fit the latter into the Birad_R_Recombination template, it forms a real (not formal) charge separation: [NH2..+] and [NH.-] (dots represent radicals). In this case, the scission of the N-N bond should only be allowed through the first resonance structure.
This PR only forbids opposite charges from undergoing scission, and same-charge scission is still allowed, e.g.:
image <-> image + image

Scission of opposite charges forms two charged species. Such pathway, if
allowed, should only occure through a different resonance structure of
the species.
@alongd
Copy link
Member Author

alongd commented May 6, 2018

@mjohnson541, this is a small PR that I'd like to get merged in before merging ReactionMechanismGenerator/RMG-Py#1348. Could you take a look? Thanks!

@mliu49
Copy link
Contributor

mliu49 commented May 6, 2018

Are there any cases where the opposite charges may not be on adjacent atoms? For example, something like [O-]C[N+] (completely made up, just to show what I mean).

If that is possible, then you could consider checking for charged products in KineticsFamily.__generateProductStructures instead of using forbidden structures.

@alongd
Copy link
Member Author

alongd commented May 7, 2018

Excellent idea, @mliu49, thanks, I'll do that instead.

@alongd alongd closed this May 7, 2018
@alongd alongd removed the request for review from mjohnson541 May 7, 2018 00:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants