Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Electric Field of a Continuous Line Charge01:19

Electric Field of a Continuous Line Charge

2.5K
In physics, symmetry in a system means that something in the considered system remains unchanged due to a specific operation to which it is subjected. For example, consider a horizontal square. The square looks the same if its right and left sides are interchanged. Hence, it is symmetric under a right-left interchange.
In calculations of electric fields, symmetry is of great use. For example, while calculating electric fields of continuous charge distributions.
Consider a line element with a...
2.5K
Electric Field of Two Equal and Opposite Charges01:30

Electric Field of Two Equal and Opposite Charges

7.1K
Atoms generally contain the same number of positively and negatively charged particles, protons, and electrons. Hence, they are electrically neutral. However, the centers of the positive and negative charges do not always coincide. In such a scenario, the electric field of an atom may not be zero.
A separation of the positive and negative charges can lead to a weak, remnant effect of the positive and negative charges. The expectation is that the more the distance between the positive and...
7.1K
Electric Field of a Charged Disk01:23

Electric Field of a Charged Disk

3.2K
The simplest case of a surface charge distribution is the uniformly charged disk. Calculating its electric field also helps us calculate the electric field of a large plane of charge.
The system's symmetry is in the cylindrical directions across the plane of the charge. As a result, the electric fields created by various surface charge elements nullify each other in the direction parallel to the surface. Thereby, the resulting electric field is perpendicular to the plane. Since the disk is...
3.2K
Magnetic Field due to Moving Charges01:23

Magnetic Field due to Moving Charges

11.6K
A stationary charge creates and interacts with the electric field, while a moving charge creates a magnetic field.
Consider a point charge moving with a constant velocity. Like the electric field, the magnetic field at any point is directly proportional to the magnitude of the charge and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the source point and the field point. However, unlike the electric field, the magnetic field is always perpendicular to the plane containing the line...
11.6K
Motion Of A Charged Particle In A Magnetic Field01:22

Motion Of A Charged Particle In A Magnetic Field

7.1K
A charged particle experiences a force when moving through a magnetic field. Consider the field to be uniform and the charged particle to move perpendicular to it. If the field is in a vacuum, the magnetic field is the dominant factor determining the motion. Since the magnetic force is perpendicular to the direction of motion, a charged particle follows a curved path. The particle continues to follow this curved path until it forms a complete circle. Another way to look at this is that the...
7.1K
Electric Field of a Non Uniformly Charged Sphere01:22

Electric Field of a Non Uniformly Charged Sphere

2.3K
Gauss's law states that the electric flux through any closed surface equals the net charge enclosed within the surface. This law is beneficial for determining the expressions for the electric field for a particular charge distribution if the electric flux is known.
Consider a non-uniformly charged sphere, for which the density of charge depends only on the distance from a point in space and not on the direction. Such a sphere has a spherically symmetrical charge distribution. Here, the electric...
2.3K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Pore Geometry-Driven Capture of Trace Aromatic Volatile Organic Compounds in Al-Based MOFs.

ACS nano·2026
Same author

Tunable Microporous Bimetallic Carboxylate-Pyrazolate Metal-Organic Frameworks for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture.

Journal of the American Chemical Society·2026
Same author

The data-only illusion in materials discovery.

Nature materials·2026
Same author

Machine learning potential for modelling dynamic hydrogen bond networks in MOF MIL-120.

Chemical science·2026
Same author

Design and Synthesis of a High-Performance Copper(II) Metal-Organic Framework Featuring Large Surface Area and Enhanced Methane Adsorption Capacity from a Thiophene-Functionalized Diisophthalic Acid Ligand.

Inorganic chemistry·2026
Same author

ReDD-COFFEE under the Lens: Revealing Adsorption and Separation Performances of Hypothetical COFs Using Molecular Simulations and Machine Learning.

Industrial & engineering chemistry research·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 2, 2026

Electrostatic Method to Remove Particulate Organic Matter from Soil
04:40

Electrostatic Method to Remove Particulate Organic Matter from Soil

Published on: February 10, 2021

5.2K

Evaluating Charge Equilibration Methods To Generate Electrostatic Fields in Nanoporous Materials.

Daniele Ongari1, Peter G Boyd1, Ozge Kadioglu2

  • 1Laboratory of Molecular Simulation (LSMO), Institut des Sciences et Ingénierie Chimiques , Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) , Rue de l'Industrie 17 , CH-1951 Sion , Valais , Switzerland.

Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
|November 13, 2018
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Charge equilibration (Qeq) methods offer a faster way to estimate atomic charges for materials like metal-organic frameworks (MOFs). This study guides users on selecting optimal Qeq parameters for accurate gas adsorption predictions, especially for CO2 and H2S.

More Related Videos

Microfabrication of Nanoporous Gold Patterns for Cell-material Interaction Studies
13:02

Microfabrication of Nanoporous Gold Patterns for Cell-material Interaction Studies

Published on: July 15, 2013

11.9K
Monitoring Protein Adsorption with Solid-state Nanopores
08:51

Monitoring Protein Adsorption with Solid-state Nanopores

Published on: December 2, 2011

14.1K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 2, 2026

Electrostatic Method to Remove Particulate Organic Matter from Soil
04:40

Electrostatic Method to Remove Particulate Organic Matter from Soil

Published on: February 10, 2021

5.2K
Microfabrication of Nanoporous Gold Patterns for Cell-material Interaction Studies
13:02

Microfabrication of Nanoporous Gold Patterns for Cell-material Interaction Studies

Published on: July 15, 2013

11.9K
Monitoring Protein Adsorption with Solid-state Nanopores
08:51

Monitoring Protein Adsorption with Solid-state Nanopores

Published on: December 2, 2011

14.1K

Area of Science:

  • Computational chemistry
  • Materials science
  • Solid-state physics

Background:

  • Charge equilibration (Qeq) methods provide rapid estimation of atomic point charges for molecules and periodic systems.
  • These methods are crucial for computational screening of materials, such as metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), for applications like gas adsorption.
  • Recent advancements have introduced Qeq variants to enhance charge prediction accuracy, particularly for MOFs.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review the evolution of Qeq methods and analyze the impact of modifications on charge prediction.
  • To evaluate the performance of different Qeq protocols and parameter sets against high-quality DFT-derived charges.
  • To identify systematic errors related to specific atom types and guide the selection of Qeq methods for gas adsorption studies.

Main Methods:

  • Comparison of Qeq-derived charges with DFT-derived DDEC charges for 2338 MOF structures.
  • Analysis of systematic errors attributed to specific atom types.
  • Evaluation of combined protocols and parameter sets for Qeq methods.

Main Results:

  • Both Qeq algorithm type and input parameters significantly influence the resulting atomic charges.
  • The original Qeq scheme's accuracy is often comparable to recent variants for the studied MOFs.
  • Specific atom types, like alkali metals, can lead to significant errors with Qeq methods.

Conclusions:

  • Guidelines are provided for selecting appropriate Qeq combinations to obtain meaningful atomic charges.
  • Qeq methods are valuable for large-scale screening, but users must be aware of potential inaccuracies with certain elements.
  • Careful parameter selection is essential for reliable Qeq charge predictions in gas adsorption applications.