The ABINIT Users Mailing List ( CLOSED )

[Paul Fons <paul-fons@aist.go.jp>]

  I have tried both methods of generating ultrasoft pseudopotentials and was under the impression that Nancy Holzwarth's system generated more reasonable pseudopotentials, but perhaps it was the non-linear core corrections that were the problem.  Has anyone systematically compared the two methods?   The USPP pseudopotentials have the advantage that there are a lot of different input files for the elements already available I have noted.  On the other hand Nancy Holzwarth's pages have a periodic table linked with several tens of elements included as well.  On thing that has bothered me about this table is that none of the input files create new generalized basis functions (whereas the input file on the abinit PAW page for O does).    I have generated a PAW potential for Sb and it seemed to give reasonable results, but I am curious about others experiences.  

Dr. Paul Fons

Nano-Optics Reseach Team

Team Leader

National Institute for Advanced Industrial Science & Technology

METI

Center for Applied Near-Field Optics Research (CANFOR)

AIST Central 4, Higashi 1-1-1

Tsukuba, Ibaraki JAPAN 305-8568

tel. +81-298-61-5636

fax. +81-298-61-2939

email: paul-fons@aist.go.jp

The following lines are in a Japanese font

〒305-8562 茨城県つくば市つくば中央東 1-1-1

産業技術総合研究所

近接場光応用工学研究センター

近接場光基礎研究チーム　チーム長

ポール・フォンス