Topics
Monte Carlo methods, Potential energy surfaces, Chemical elements

Recently it has come to our attention that there is an error in column 1 of Table III of this publication. The numbers shown there for the values of the atom separation R at which the potential energy of the helium dimer were calculated are not the actual values that we used. The error came about by the truncation of the values of R when converted from angstrom, which we used in the actual calculation to values in atomic units (a.u.) which were displayed in column 1 of Table III.

Table III.

Binding energy values of the helium dimer at different values of the atom separation. The binding energies are given in K.

SeparationVMCDMCHurly and MoldoveraHurly and Mehlb
(angstrom)(a.u.)
0.50 0.944 86 315 889.69±72.63 314 409.15±3.79 319 211.10 319 348.81 
1.0 1.889 72 46 759.27±47.37 45 959.52±4.11 45 840.27 45 864.67 
1.2 2.267 66 20 781.23±26.84 20 159.33±0.64 20 108.77 20 120.54 
1.5 2.834 57 5931.68±29.05 5575.28±5.37 5549.73 5556.60 
1.7 3.212 52 2460.70±21.79 2271.94±1.45 2259.19 2263.56 
2.0 3.779 43 639.31±10.42 537.78±1.77 535.64 537.49 
2.3 4.346 35 162.50±11.68 102.24±0.32 100.67 101.34 
2.4 4.535 32 102.18±11.05 49.76±0.29 50.54 51.01 
2.5 4.724 29 62.27±3.03 19.49±0.27 21.02 21.35 
2.96 5.593 56 2.91±1.52 −10.89±0.17 −11.05 −10.99 
3.1 5.858 12 0.22±1.39 −10.31±0.15 −10.40 −10.37 
3.9 7.369 89 0.82±0.92 −2.57±0.18 −3.41 −3.41 
SeparationVMCDMCHurly and MoldoveraHurly and Mehlb
(angstrom)(a.u.)
0.50 0.944 86 315 889.69±72.63 314 409.15±3.79 319 211.10 319 348.81 
1.0 1.889 72 46 759.27±47.37 45 959.52±4.11 45 840.27 45 864.67 
1.2 2.267 66 20 781.23±26.84 20 159.33±0.64 20 108.77 20 120.54 
1.5 2.834 57 5931.68±29.05 5575.28±5.37 5549.73 5556.60 
1.7 3.212 52 2460.70±21.79 2271.94±1.45 2259.19 2263.56 
2.0 3.779 43 639.31±10.42 537.78±1.77 535.64 537.49 
2.3 4.346 35 162.50±11.68 102.24±0.32 100.67 101.34 
2.4 4.535 32 102.18±11.05 49.76±0.29 50.54 51.01 
2.5 4.724 29 62.27±3.03 19.49±0.27 21.02 21.35 
2.96 5.593 56 2.91±1.52 −10.89±0.17 −11.05 −10.99 
3.1 5.858 12 0.22±1.39 −10.31±0.15 −10.40 −10.37 
3.9 7.369 89 0.82±0.92 −2.57±0.18 −3.41 −3.41 
a

Reference 1.

b

Reference 2.

View Large

The actual values of R used in our calculations are as shown in the table below in angstrom and in a.u. using the conversion factor 1 a.u.=0.529 180 Å⁠. Also shown are the values predicted by the empirical, analytical curve of Hurly et al.1,2 using parameters from both Refs. 1 and 2. It should be noted that we used the parameters from Ref. 1 in our previous paper3 not those of Ref. 2 as previously erroneously stated. However, the curves calculated from both these parameter sets are in agreement to within less than 1% except at R=2.5 Å where the difference is 1.5% which does not affect the conclusions made in Ref. 3.

This work was supported by the Australian Partnership for Advanced Computer (APAC), the Victorian Partnership for Advanced Computing (VPAC), and the Australian Research Council (ARC).

1.
J. J.
 
Hurly
 and
M. R.
 
Moldover
,
J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.
 
105
,
667
(
2000
).
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
2.
J. J.
 
Hurly
 and
J. B.
 
Mehl
,
J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.
 
112
,
75
(
2007
).
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
3.
R.
 
Springall
,
M. C.
 
Per
,
S. P.
 
Russo
, and
I. K.
 
Snook
,
J. Chem. Phys.
 
128
,
114308
(
2008
).
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2839440
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
View Original Article
© 2010 American Institute of Physics.
2010
American Institute of Physics