全文获取类型
收费全文 | 8191篇 |
免费 | 1237篇 |
国内免费 | 747篇 |
专业分类
化学 | 5679篇 |
晶体学 | 132篇 |
力学 | 484篇 |
综合类 | 72篇 |
数学 | 785篇 |
物理学 | 3023篇 |
出版年
2024年 | 33篇 |
2023年 | 179篇 |
2022年 | 309篇 |
2021年 | 311篇 |
2020年 | 373篇 |
2019年 | 350篇 |
2018年 | 300篇 |
2017年 | 253篇 |
2016年 | 411篇 |
2015年 | 401篇 |
2014年 | 528篇 |
2013年 | 605篇 |
2012年 | 672篇 |
2011年 | 693篇 |
2010年 | 457篇 |
2009年 | 374篇 |
2008年 | 498篇 |
2007年 | 425篇 |
2006年 | 379篇 |
2005年 | 321篇 |
2004年 | 214篇 |
2003年 | 218篇 |
2002年 | 166篇 |
2001年 | 124篇 |
2000年 | 154篇 |
1999年 | 151篇 |
1998年 | 129篇 |
1997年 | 131篇 |
1996年 | 151篇 |
1995年 | 110篇 |
1994年 | 108篇 |
1993年 | 89篇 |
1992年 | 78篇 |
1991年 | 69篇 |
1990年 | 72篇 |
1989年 | 47篇 |
1988年 | 49篇 |
1987年 | 37篇 |
1986年 | 37篇 |
1985年 | 26篇 |
1984年 | 22篇 |
1983年 | 15篇 |
1982年 | 19篇 |
1981年 | 15篇 |
1980年 | 11篇 |
1979年 | 8篇 |
1975年 | 5篇 |
1974年 | 5篇 |
1970年 | 12篇 |
1937年 | 5篇 |
排序方式: 共有10000条查询结果,搜索用时 31 毫秒
991.
Two symmetrical macrocyclic dinuclear complexes, [Cu2L1(ClO4)2(H2O)2][Cu2L1(H2O)2] (ClO4)2 (1) and [Cu2L2(ClO4)2] (2), (where H2L1 and H2L2 are the [2?+?2] condensation products of 1,3-diaminopropane with 2,6-diformyl-4-methylphenol and 2,6-diformyl-4-flurophenol, respectively), have been synthesized and characterized. The electronic and magnetic properties of the complexes were studied by cyclic voltammetry and magnetic susceptibility. There are strong antiferromagnetic couplings between the two copper(II) centers in both complexes. The strongly electron-withdrawing fluorine groups in H2L2 weaken the antiferromagnetic exchange, but make the metal centers more easily reduced than its analog H2L1. The interactions of the complexes with calf thymus DNA were studied by UV?CVis and CD spectroscopic techniques. 相似文献
992.
Guangming Pan 《Journal of multivariate analysis》2010,101(6):1330-1338
Let , where is a random symmetric matrix, a random symmetric matrix, and with being independent real random variables. Suppose that , and are independent. It is proved that the empirical spectral distribution of the eigenvalues of random symmetric matrices converges almost surely to a non-random distribution. 相似文献
993.
Chen Chen Meng-hui Wang Lin-Yan Feng Lian-Qing Zhao Jin-Chang Guo Hua-Jin Zhai Zhong-hua Cui Sudip Pan Gabriel Merino 《Chemical science》2022,13(27):8045
The occurrence of planar hexacoordination is very rare in main group elements. We report here a class of clusters containing a planar hexacoordinate silicon (phSi) atom with the formula SiSb3M3+ (M = Ca, Sr, Ba), which have D3h (1A1′) symmetry in their global minimum structure. The unique ability of heavier alkaline-earth atoms to use their vacant d atomic orbitals in bonding effectively stabilizes the peripheral ring and is responsible for covalent interaction with the Si center. Although the interaction between Si and Sb is significantly stronger than the Si–M one, sizable stabilization energies (−27.4 to −35.4 kcal mol−1) also originated from the combined electrostatic and covalent attraction between Si and M centers. The lighter homologues, SiE3M3+ (E = N, P, As; M = Ca, Sr, Ba) clusters, also possess similar D3h symmetric structures as the global minima. However, the repulsive electrostatic interaction between Si and M dominates over covalent attraction making the Si–M contacts repulsive in nature. Most interestingly, the planarity of the phSi core and the attractive nature of all the six contacts of phSi are maintained in N-heterocyclic carbene (NHC) and benzene (Bz) bound SiSb3M3(NHC)6+ and SiSb3M3(Bz)6+ (M = Ca, Sr, Ba) complexes. Therefore, bare and ligand-protected SiSb3M3+ clusters are suitable candidates for gas-phase detection and large-scale synthesis, respectively.The global minimum of SiSb3M3+ (M = Ca, Sr, Ba) is a D3h symmetric structure containing an elusive planar hexacoordinate silicon (phSi) atom. Most importantly, the phSi core remains intact in ligand protected environment as well.Exploring the bonding capacity of main-group elements (such as carbon or silicon) beyond the traditional tetrahedral concept has been a fascinating subject in chemistry for five decades. The 1970 pioneering work of Hoffmann and coworkers1 initiated the field of planar tetracoordinate carbons (ptCs), or more generally, planar hypercoordinate carbons. The past 50 years have witnessed the design and characterization of an array of ptC and planar pentacoordinate carbon (ppC) species.2–14 However, it turned out to be rather challenging to go beyond ptC and ppC systems. The celebrated CB62− cluster and relevant species15,16 were merely model systems because C avoids planar hypercoordination in such systems.17,18 In 2012, the first genuine global minimum D3h CO3Li3+ cluster was reported to have six interactions with carbon in planar form, although electrostatic repulsion between positively charged phC and Li centers and the absence of any significant orbital interaction between them make this hexacoordinate assignment questionable.19 It was only very recently that a series of planar hexacoordinate carbon (phC) species, CE3M3+ (E = S–Te; M = Li–Cs), were designed computationally by the groups of Tiznado and Merino (Fig. 1; left panel),20 in which there exist pure electrostatic interactions between the negative Cδ− center and positive Mδ+ ligands. These phC clusters were achieved following the so-called “proper polarization of ligand” strategy.Open in a separate windowFig. 1The pictorial depiction of previously reported phC CE3M3+ (E = S–Te; M = Li–Cs) clusters and the present SiE3M3+ (E = S–Te and N–Sb; M = Li–Cs and Ca–Ba) clusters. Herein the solid and dashed lines represent covalent and ionic bonding, respectively. The opposite double arrows illustrate electrostatic repulsion.The concept of planar hypercoordinate carbons has been naturally extended to their next heavier congener, silicon-based systems. Although the steric repulsion between ligands decreases due to the larger size, the strength of π- and σ-bonding between the central atom and peripheral ligands dramatically decreases, which is crucial for stability. Planar tetracoordinate silicon (ptSi) was first experimentally observed in a pentaatomic C2v SiAl4− cluster by Wang and coworkers in 2000.21 Very recently, this topic got a huge boost by the room-temperature, large-scale syntheses of complexes containing a ptSi unit.22 A recent computational study also predicted the global minimum of SiMg4Y− (Y = In, Tl) and SiMg3In2 to have unprecendented planar pentacoordinate Si (ppSi) units.23 Planar hexacoordinate Si (phSi) systems seem to be even more difficult to stabilize. Previously, a C2v symmetric Cu6H6Si cluster was predicted as the true minimum,24 albeit its potential energy surface was not fully explored. A kinetically viable phSi SiAl3Mg3H2+ cluster cation was also predicted.25 However, these phSi systems24,25 are only local minima and not likely to be observed experimentally. In 2018, the group of Chen identified the Ca4Si22− building block containing a ppSi center and constructed an infinite CaSi monolayer, which is essentially a two-dimensional lattice of the Ca4Si2 motif.26 Thus, it is still an open question to achieve a phSi atom to date.Herein we have tried to find the correct combination towards a phSi system as the most stable isomer. Gratifyingly, we found a series of clusters, SiE3M3+ (E = N, P, As, Sb; M = Ca, Sr, Ba), having planar D3h symmetry with Si at the center of the six membered ring, as true global minimum forms. Si–E bonds are very strong in all the clusters, and alkaline-earth metals interact with the Si center by employing their d orbitals. However, electrostatic repulsion originated from the positively charged Si and M centers for E = N, P, and As dominates over attractive covalent interaction, making individual Si–M contacts repulsive in nature. This makes the assignment of SiE3M3+ (E = N, P, As; M = Ca, Sr, Ba) as genuine phSi somewhat skeptical. SiSb3M3+ (M = Ca, Sr, Ba) clusters are the sole candidates which possess genuine phSi centers as both electrostatic and covalent interactions in Si–M bonds are attractive. The d orbitals of M ligands play a crucial role in stabilizing the ligand framework and forming covalent bonds with phSi. Such planar hypercoordinate atoms are, in general, susceptible to external perturbations. However, the present title clusters maintain the planarity and the attractive nature of the bonds even after multiple ligand binding at M centers in SiSb3M3(NHC)6+ and SiSb3M3(Bz)6+. This would open the door for large-scale synthesis of phSi as well.Two major computational efforts were made before reaching our title phSi clusters. The first one is to examine SiE3M3+ (E = S–Po; M = Li–Cs) clusters, which adopt D3h or C3v structures as true minima (see Table S1 in ESI†), being isoelectronic to the previous phC CE3M3+ (E = S–Po; M = Li–Cs) clusters. In the SiE3M3+ (E = S–Po; M = Li–Cs) clusters, the Si center always carries a positive charge ranging from 0.01 to +1.03|e|, in contrast to the corresponding phC species (see Fig. 1). Thus, electrostatic interactions between the Siδ+ and Mδ+ centers would be repulsive (Fig. 1). Given that the possibility of covalent interaction with an alkali metal is minimal, it would be a matter of debate whether they could be called true coordination. A second effort is to tune the electronegativity difference between Si and M centers so that the covalent contribution in Si–M bonding becomes substantial. Along this line, we consider the combinations of SiE3M3+ (E = N, P, As, Sb; M = Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba). The results in Fig. S1† show that for E = Be and Mg, the phSi geometry has a large out-of-plane imaginary frequency mode, which indicates a size mismatch between the Si center and peripheral E3M3 (E = N–Bi; M = Be, Mg) ring. On the other hand, the use of larger M = Ca, Sr, Ba atoms effectively expands the size of the cavity and eventually leads to perfect planar geometry with Si atoms at the center as minima. In the case of SiBi3M3+, the planar isomer possesses a small imaginary frequency for M = Ca. Although planar SiBi3Sr3+ and SiBi3Ba3+ are true minima, they are 2.2 and 2.5 kcal mol−1 higher in energy than the lowest energy isomer, respectively (Fig. S2†). Fig. 2 displays some selected low-lying isomers of SiE3M3+ (E = N, P, As, Sb; M = Ca, Sr, Ba) clusters (see Fig. S3–S6† for additional isomers). The global minimum structure is a D3h symmetric phSi with an 1A1′ electronic state for all the twelve cases. The second lowest energy isomer, a ppSi, is located more than 49 kcal mol−1 above phSi for E = N. This relative energy between the most stable and nearest energy isomer gradually decreases upon moving from N to Sb. In the case of SiSb3M3+ clusters, the second-lowest energy isomer is 4.6–6.1 kcal mol−1 higher in energy than phSi. The nearest triplet state isomer is very high in energy (by 36–53 kcal mol−1, Fig. S3–S6†) with respect to the global minimum.Open in a separate windowFig. 2The structures of low-lying isomers of SiE3M3+ (E = N, P, As, Sb; M = Ca, Sr, Ba) clusters. Relative energies (in kcal mol−1) are shown at the single-point CCSD(T)/def2-TZVP//PBE0/def2-TZVP level, followed by a zero-energy correction at PBE0. The values from left to right refer to Ca, Sr, and Ba in sequence. The group symmetries and electronic states are also given.Born–Oppenheimer molecular dynamics (BOMD) simulations at room temperature (298 K), taking SiE3Ca3+ clusters as case studies, were also performed. The results are displayed in Fig. S7.† All trajectories show no isomerization or other structural alterations during the simulation time, as indicated by the small root mean square deviation (RMSD) values. The BOMD data suggest that the global minimum also has reasonable kinetic stability against isomerization and decomposition.The bond distances, natural atomic charges, and bond indices for SiE3Ca3+ clusters are given in † for M = Sr, Ba). The Si–E bond distances are shorter than the typical Si–E single bond distance computed using the self-consistent covalent radii proposed by Pyykkö.27 In contrast, the Si–M bond distance is almost equal to the single bond distance. This gives the first hint of the presence of covalent bonding therein. However, the Wiberg bond indices (WBIs) for the Si–M links are surprisingly low (0.02–0.04). We then checked the Mayer bond order (MBO), which can be seen as a generalization of WBIs and is more acceptable since the approach of WBI calculations assumes orthonormal conditions of basis functions while the MBO considers an overlap matrix. The MBO values for the Si–M links are now sizable (0.13–0.18). These values are reasonable considering the large difference in electronegativity between Si and M, and, therefore, only a very polar bond is expected between them. In fact, the calculations of WBIs after orthogonalization of basis functions by the Löwdin method gives significantly large bond orders (0.48–0.55), which is known to overestimate the bond orders somewhat. The above results indicate that the presence of covalent bonding cannot be ruled out only by looking at WBI values.Bond distances (r, in Å), different bond orders (WBIs) {MBOs} [WBI in orthogonalized basis], and natural atomic charges (q, in |e|) of SiE3Ca3+ (E = N, P, As, Sb) clusters at the PBE0/def2-TZVP level
Open in a separate windowOur following argument regarding the presence of covalent Si–M bonding is based on energy decomposition analysis (EDA) in combination with natural orbital for chemical valence (NOCV) theory. We first performed EDA by taking Ca and SiE3Ca2 in different charge and electronic states as interacting fragments to get the optimum fragmentation scheme that suits the best to describe the bonding situation (see Tables S6–S9†). The size of orbital interaction (ΔEorb) is used as a probe.28 For all cases, Ca+ (D, 4s1) and SiE3Ca2 (D) in their doublet spin states turn out to be the best schemes, which give the lowest ΔEorb value. Energy term Interaction Ca+ (D, 4s1) + SiN3Ca2 (D) Ca+ (D, 4s1) + SiP3Ca2 (D) Ca+ (D, 4s1) + SiAs3Ca2 (D) Ca+ (D, 4s1) + SiSb3Ca2 (D) ΔEint −192.9 −153.0 −144.9 −129.9 ΔEPauli 139.8 115.2 115.7 110.9 ΔEelstata −162.0 (48.7%) −116.4 (43.4%) −113.0 (43.4%) −100.9 (41.9%) ΔEorba −170.7 (51.3%) −151.8 (56.6%) −147.6 (56.6%) −140.0 (58.1%) ΔEorb(1)b SiE3Ca2–Ca+(s) electron-sharing σ-bond −89.2 (52.3%) −79.4 (52.3%) −74.3 (50.3%) −66.9 (47.8%) ΔEorb(2)b SiE3Ca2 → Ca+(d) π‖-donation −32.9 (19.3%) −32.0 (21.1%) −31.8 (21.5%) −30.8 (22.0%) ΔEorb(3)b SiE3Ca2 → Ca+(d) σ-donation −13.1 (7.7%) −11.9 (7.8%) −12.0 (8.1%) −11.9 (8.5%) ΔEorb(4)b SiE3Ca2 → Ca+(d) π⊥-donation −12.3 (7.2%) −12.2 (8.0%) −12.5 (8.5%) −12.5 (8.9%) ΔEorb(5)b SiE3Ca2 → Ca+(d) δ-donation −8.1 (4.7%) −9.9 (6.5%) −10.9 (7.4%) −11.8 (8.4%) ΔEorb(rest)b −15.1 (8.8%) −6.4 (4.2%) −6.1 (4.1%) −6.1 (4.4%)
r Si–E | r Si–Ca | r E–Ca | q Si | q E | q Ca | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E = N | 1.669 | 2.555 | 2.246 | 1.57 | −1.93 | 1.74 |
(1.14) {1.23} [1.84] | (0.02) {0.13} [0.51] | (0.22) {0.67} [0.84] | ||||
E = P | 2.180 | 2.935 | 2.640 | 0.25 | −1.42 | 1.67 |
(1.34) {1.11} [1.52] | (0.03) {0.14} [0.54] | (0.27) {0.74} [1.05] | ||||
E = As | 2.301 | 3.004 | 2.721 | 0.07 | −1.34 | 1.65 |
(1.33) {1.10} [1.45] | (0.03) {0.15} [0.55] | (0.29) {0.71} [1.12] | ||||
E = Sb | 2.538 | 3.155 | 2.896 | −0.39 | −1.16 | 1.62 |
(1.29) {1.01} [1.33] | (0.04) {0.18} [0.48] | (0.30) {0.78} [1.14] |