### Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
##### TmoleX - general topics / Re: MO Visualisation Cut off
« Last post by drTCPC on April 25, 2017, 05:48:00 pm »
Thank you for the info.

> Try to increase the value at which the orbital is being plotted until it fits in the box.
Do you mean the Max option beneath the display: isosurface option. If so, the value I selected is orientated on the visualision used in publications. So changing that is not a real option.

I have tried your suggestion of $pointval and got a 100 MB large .plt (or .plv with fmt=plv) file no matter what range I used which TmoleX (running on Win 10, 16 GB RAM, 3.2 GHz Proc) seems to hang up on when I try to visualise it. The .plv files that TmoleX created previously were only about 1 MB in size. 2 ##### Jobex: Structure Optimization and Molecular Dynamics / QMMM optimization using TURBOMOLE « Last post by payelsahu on April 20, 2017, 08:58:09 am » Hello everyone, I am runnig a QMMM optimization of a system containing protein and carbohydrate parts. In the optimization step the qm-region is treated with TURBOMOLE and the mm-region is treated with DL-POLY using the CHARMM topology and parameter files (par_all36_prot.prm and par_all36_carb.prm). I can't use two parameter files as the ' charmm_parameter_file' argument where I have to use both the parameter files in a single argument . I have tried to 'list' the parameter files and the error was showing as 'unmatched open quote in list' . Kindly help me to solve the issue or let me know if there is any other way to provide the parameter files in a single argument. 3 ##### Installing the Program / Xcfun « Last post by mwbtm on April 10, 2017, 11:50:52 am » I am using Turbomole 7.0.1 can any one guide me how to use Xcfun. Actually I need to use m06 and tpssh functionals for optimizing geometries and calculating dscf, escf and egrad using these functionals. Can any one help me how to use Xcfun. Best Regards, mwb 4 ##### Ridft, Rdgrad, Dscf, Grad / Re: Unrestricted DFT in H2 Dissociation « Last post by Wook on March 27, 2017, 02:52:24 am » Thank you for your reply! Wook 5 ##### TURBOMOLE Forum General / Re:$rpacor $maxcor$ricore questions
« Last post by christof.haettig on March 23, 2017, 03:08:00 pm »
Of cause not.... You should assign to each job only 75% of the RAM that is availlable for that particular calculation.
If you run several calculation on one machine you need in advance decide how you want to split the total available RAM for the jobs.
If both have about the same size the best would be to give each of them half of the RAM --> set $maxcor to about 37.5% of the total RAM. 6 ##### Ridft, Rdgrad, Dscf, Grad / Re: Unrestricted DFT in H2 Dissociation « Last post by christof.haettig on March 23, 2017, 03:03:14 pm » I've not used Gaussian since more than 20 years.... No idea what 'guess=mix' in Gaussian does. That symmetry has to be broken 'by hand' to get the correct UHF solution is a very special problem for higly symmetric molecules. Up to know I had this only for H2 which I use to teach students the bond breaking problem in HF and KS-DFT. Christof 7 ##### Ricc2 / Re: ADC(2) transition moment calculation « Last post by christof.haettig on March 23, 2017, 02:58:20 pm » I hope you do not expect me to analyze the notation from Dreuw.... The implementation in TURBOMOLE is based on the original formulation by Schirmer and coworker. They used a strictly MP-based approximation which leads to the occurence of second-order contributions in the expressions for transition moments. That might be interesting for academic purposes, but for a model that could be used for routine (production) calculations it is for the performance/cost ratio unacceptable to include the O(N^6) scaling terms second-order terms. There identification is straightforward if one notes that a) the MP2 energy is computed from the first-order amplitudes and the b) the second-order amplitudes are those computed in a MPPT program to compute the MP4 energy. The detailed working expressions are given e.g. by Lunkenheimer in JCTC 9 (2013) 977. 8 ##### TURBOMOLE Forum General / Re:$rpacor $maxcor$ricore questions
« Last post by inozerox on March 22, 2017, 08:10:03 pm »
Thanks christof.haettig for answering me my question.

Thinking about the answer that you give me. I have another question.

If I try to set up two calculations at the same machine. Do I need to assign the 75% of RAM memory of that machine in both cases?

9
##### Ridft, Rdgrad, Dscf, Grad / Re: Unrestricted DFT in H2 Dissociation
« Last post by Wook on March 22, 2017, 08:43:21 am »
Dear Christof

I am still wondering whether there is a way to do what you said by a command in Turbomole, like 'guess=mix' in Gaussian.
Is it possible?

Thanks,
Wook
10
##### Ricc2 / ADC(2) transition moment calculation
« Last post by david.mester on March 22, 2017, 07:55:39 am »
Dear Users and Developers,

I would like to perform ADC(2) transition moment calculations with Turbomole and make comparisons with previous results and benchmarks obtained with other programs.

Could you, please, help to clarify the precise expression for the transition moments printed by Tubromole? The corresponding section of the manual (http://www.turbomole-gmbh.com/manuals/version_6_6/Documentation_html/DOKse43.html) discusses that some terms are neglected in the ground to excited state transition moments:

“...the implementation in the ricc2 program neglects in the calculation of the ground to excited state transition moments the contributions which are second order in ground state amplitudes (i.e. contain second-order amplitudes or products of first-order amplitudes)”

It is not clear to us, which contributions are included and which ones are neglected. Could you, please, explain which terms are computed in more detail, because we were not able to find a more detailed reference/publication covering the implementation in Turbomole. Could you point us to such documentation in the literature that we perhaps missed?

To assist the discussion I collected here the terms contributing to the ADC(2) transition densities according to the Eqs. (A1)-(A3) in the paper of Dreuw and co-workers (Mol. Phys., 2014, 112, 774-784):

“0th order:
\rho_{ai} = Y_{ia}
1st order:
\rho_{ia} = - \sum_{jb} t_{ij}^{ab} Y_{jb}
2nd order:
\rho_{ij} = - \sum_{a} \rho^{MP2}_{ia} Y_{ja} - \sum_{kab} Y_{ik}^{ab} t_{jk}^{ab}
\rho_{ia} = - \sum_{jb} Y_{jb} t^D_{ij}^{ab}
\rho_{ai} = 1/2 \sum_{jb} t_{ij}^{ab} \sum_{kc} t_{jk}^{bc} Y_{kc} - 1/2 \sum_{b} \rho^{MP2}_{ab} Y_{ib} + 1/2 \sum_{j} \rho^{MP2}_{ij} Y_{ja}
\rho_{ab} = \sum_{i} Y_{ia} \rho^{MP2}_{ib} + \sum_{ijc} Y_{ij}^{ac} t_{ij}^{bc},

where Y denotes the excited state eigenvectors, t_{ij}^{ab} is the MP2 amplitude, t^D_{ij}^{ab} is an O(N^6) scaled intermediate, and \rho^{MP2}_{pq} is the pq part of the MP2 density matrix.”

Could you explain your approximation using the above terminology?

An second source for discrepancies in comparisons could come from different approaches to normalize the ground/excited state wave function. Could you explain how do you normalize these functions in Tubromole?

Yours sincerely,
Dávid Mester
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10