Subject: Re: CCL:Y2K molecule--correction

From: John Kerkines <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:49:12 +0200 (EET)

On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Errol Lewars wrote:

> 2000 01 06
> 
> Re my message:
> --------
> 2000 01 06
> 
> >Hello,
> 
> >I hope CCLers will excuse me for mentioning, just before it ceases 
> >to be
> >topical, the molecule Y2K (diytterbium potassium). See _Science_, 
> >17
> >December 1999, p. 2281. The authors conclude that its preparation 
> >is
> >"unlikely to [represent an] explosive event" but that it "could be the
> >material of the millenium." 
> 
> > E. Lewars
> >===========
> 
> Sorry, Y is Yttrium, not Ytterbium (which is Yb). _My_ fault. Or maybe
> my computer had a Y2k problem.
> 

Hey is this thing superconducting? ;)

...because it reminds me of the story with the discovery of YBa2Cu3O7
("accidentally" written as YbBa2.....).

With Regards,
John Kerkines

---

From: "Richard P. Muller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 14:16:47 -0800

I'm currently working on 2-electron atoms using Pekeris' approach (see
Phys Rev 112, 1649 (1958) and Phys Rev 115, 1216 (1959)). I believe that
Equation 22 of the 1958 paper has an error in it, because the results
don't agree with the special case results for the 7x7 case that Pekeris
puts on the following page of that paper. I've checked my work several
times, but there still appears to be something wrong. 

I looked for, but did not find, a published errata for this paper, which
concerns me, since they've certainly had time to get a correction out,
so I could be doing something dumb.

Has anyone else worked through this paper? If so, could they offer me
any help. Thanks very much in advance.

Rick Muller