Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

forum - Re: [abinit-forum] atomic calculations

forum@abinit.org

Subject: The ABINIT Users Mailing List ( CLOSED )

List archive

Re: [abinit-forum] atomic calculations


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Vincenzo Fiorentini <vincenzo.fiorentini@dsf.unica.it>
  • To: forum@abinit.org
  • Subject: Re: [abinit-forum] atomic calculations
  • Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:55:19 +0200
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer:sender; b=DrDTeCPhlIuUcIMUX+GuS5umnNZ6YQKDmJDJXRM4f0K4X3NIu3i3plzEKM7gx5bNogsUQ+a4e2s3HVbTEf3e85bnOpE1V/hzMhzpzJPpsu/sJc/XWq22yMio4W08RDF732yeS4rYQzzz99ik1ctAx+iu5YgGikB7jvvlJvecNQI=

Hi Nicola and all:

I have no real experience, but I found that calculating a GGA spin- polarized O atom with partially filled shell in a supercell *with symmetry removed* (as Andy suggests), does give a spin-polarized ground state with integer occupation for some p orbitals and zero for others. Of course it's no conceptual proof (and may also depend on which smering is used and the starting wf/density), but it may be a practical way to mine for the correct occupations.

About the other point,

> letting the electrons spread equally in a partially-filled subshell seems unstisfactory
> to calculate ionization energies of a transition metal, while you are emptying the d
> shell (e.g. you would have have first 5*1.0, then 5*0.8, then 5*0.6, etc...).

I suspect ionization energies may be flawed anyway at non-integer occupations mostly because of selfinteraction.

best, Vincenzo

---
Anche il progresso, diventato vecchio e saggio, voto' contro. (Ennio Flaiano)
---
vincenzo.fiorentini@dsf.unica.it
mobile +39 347 1410906
phone +39 070 6754912
fax +39 070 510171
fax +39 1782248846
http://www.slacs.it
http://www.dsf.unica.it/~fiore
http://vincenzofiorentini.blogspot.com








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page