forum@abinit.org
Subject: The ABINIT Users Mailing List ( CLOSED )
List archive
- From: "D. R. Hamann" <drh@bell-labs.com>
- To: forum@abinit.org
- Cc: dick@fhi-berlin.mpg.de
- Subject: Re: [abinit-forum] Built-in lattice optimization failed
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:13:01 -0500
Dear Alexey &
all, As speculated in my last posting in this string, setting optnlxccc = 2 does resolve the problem. The attached summary shows that this reduces the discrepancy between the Murnaghan-fit acell and the value obtained with built-in optimization to 0.04%. The discrepancy is 1.6% with the default value optnlxccc = 1. The 3rd-derivative core-charge continuity apparently present in Alexey's FHI pseudopotential is clearly adequate to take advantage of this option. The option became available in 4.4.*. Don Hamann Alexey Dick wrote: Dear all, -- D. R. Hamann Phone: 908-582-4454 Director, Theoretical Materials Fax: 908-582-4702 Physics Research (retired) email: drh@physics.bell-labs.com Bell Laboratories Lucent Technologies 700 Mountain Ave, Room 1D-371 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA |
ixc = 7 (PW91 GGA)
optnlxccc = 2 (use psp6cc_drh.F90)
psps:
mn:eq:lda:tm:23t-24t-1.0e-23t:p1.02:ls.cpi
n:ca:lda:tm:145t-145t-145t:p0.0:ld.cpi
acell = 7.6434464 (Murnaghan fit)
acell = 7.6402644454E+00 (optimization)
difference 0.04%
acell etot sigma(1 1)
6.5000000000E+00 -3.1976459790E+01 -1.76906625E-02
6.6000000000E+00 -3.2028087066E+01 -1.46052592E-02
6.7000000000E+00 -3.2071605940E+01 -1.18571128E-02
6.8000000000E+00 -3.2107966450E+01 -9.46987577E-03
6.9000000000E+00 -3.2137988223E+01 -7.56389480E-03
7.0000000000E+00 -3.2162395863E+01 -5.94879955E-03
7.1000000000E+00 -3.2181843873E+01 -4.56229360E-03
7.2000000000E+00 -3.2196996663E+01 -3.36746845E-03
7.3000000000E+00 -3.2208334247E+01 -2.36068313E-03
7.4000000000E+00 -3.2216168870E+01 -1.54097791E-03
7.5000000000E+00 -3.2221004087E+01 -8.36154679E-04
7.6000000000E+00 -3.2223141290E+01 -2.09558797E-04
7.7000000000E+00 -3.2222988072E+01 2.71152384E-04
7.8000000000E+00 -3.2220817964E+01 6.79576464E-04
7.9000000000E+00 -3.2216848042E+01 1.02923621E-03
8.0000000000E+00 -3.2211306186E+01 1.29520999E-03
8.1000000000E+00 -3.2204499383E+01 1.51416680E-03
8.2000000000E+00 -3.2196602542E+01 1.67181993E-03
8.3000000000E+00 -3.2187802941E+01 1.78214652E-03
8.4000000000E+00 -3.2178251547E+01 1.85145722E-03
8.5000000000E+00 -3.2168129952E+01 1.89991769E-03
- Re: Re: [abinit-forum] Built-in lattice optimization failed, dick, 03/15/2005
- Re: [abinit-forum] Built-in lattice optimization failed, D. R. Hamann, 03/15/2005
- Re: [abinit-forum] Built-in lattice optimization failed, Alexey Dick, 03/16/2005
- Re: [abinit-forum] Built-in lattice optimization failed, Alexey Dick, 03/17/2005
- Re: [abinit-forum] Built-in lattice optimization failed, D. R. Hamann, 03/18/2005
- Re: [abinit-forum] Built-in lattice optimization failed, D. R. Hamann, 03/18/2005
- Re: [abinit-forum] Built-in lattice optimization failed, D. R. Hamann, 03/19/2005
- Re: [abinit-forum] Built-in lattice optimization failed, Alexey Dick, 03/21/2005
- Re: [abinit-forum] Built-in lattice optimization failed, D. R. Hamann, 03/18/2005
- Re: [abinit-forum] Built-in lattice optimization failed, Alexey Dick, 03/17/2005
- Re: [abinit-forum] Built-in lattice optimization failed, Alexey Dick, 03/16/2005
- Re: [abinit-forum] Built-in lattice optimization failed, D. R. Hamann, 03/15/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.