[Wien] Force on frozen atoms in a MSR1a

2014-05-13 Thread Salman Zarrini


Dear Wien2k user,

All the convergence criteria including energy, charge and total force  
on all the free atoms have already met their thresholds in my MSR1a  
calculation, however, the total force on all the frozen atoms are far  
away from the force convergence threshold, and so, the job is still  
running. So, I was wondering if the frozen atoms are included from  
force convergence in a MSR1a minimization? If so, is there any way to  
exclude frozen atoms and if does it make sense?


Cheers,

Salman Zarrini


___
Wien mailing list
Wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:  
http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html


Re: [Wien] Force on frozen atoms in a MSR1a

2014-05-13 Thread Laurence Marks
I assume by frozen atoms you mean. ones where you forced via
case.inM there to be no movement. This make no sense in MSR1a.

No sense.

Contrary to what people think, it does NOT improve the convergence to
fix the positions of certain atoms, and I consider it to be
inappropriate physics. The reason is that the convergence of MSR1a
depends upon the number of clusters of eigenvalues the combined
density-atoms problem, not on the number of atoms. Indeed, this is
also true of PORT and other methods such as conjugant gradients. Alas,
the unpublished literature in DFT (and other fields) gets this wrong.

N.B., if instead by frozen atoms you mean ones which have via
symmetry no forces, this is different and indicates that there is
something wrong with your structure.

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Salman Zarrini
salman.zarr...@tu-darmstadt.de wrote:
 
 Dear Wien2k user,

 All the convergence criteria including energy, charge and total force
 on all the free atoms have already met their thresholds in my MSR1a
 calculation, however, the total force on all the frozen atoms are far
 away from the force convergence threshold, and so, the job is still
 running. So, I was wondering if the frozen atoms are included from
 force convergence in a MSR1a minimization? If so, is there any way to
 exclude frozen atoms and if does it make sense?

 Cheers,

 Salman Zarrini
 

 ___
 Wien mailing list
 Wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
 http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
 SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:  
 http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html



-- 
Professor Laurence Marks
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Northwestern University
www.numis.northwestern.edu 1-847-491-3996
Co-Editor, Acta Cryst A
Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what
nobody else has thought
Albert Szent-Gyorgi
___
Wien mailing list
Wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:  
http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html


Re: [Wien] Force on frozen atoms in a MSR1a

2014-05-13 Thread Laurence Marks
N.B., the only time it would make sense is if you are calculating something
like an activation energy barrier, in which case just do touch .stop.

Fixing atoms, for instance of a substrate, is bad physics in my opinion.

__
Laurence Marks
Dept Mat Sci  Eng
Northwestern University
www.numis.northwestern.edu
847 491 3996
On May 13, 2014 9:47 AM, Laurence Marks l-ma...@northwestern.edu wrote:

 I assume by frozen atoms you mean. ones where you forced via
 case.inM there to be no movement. This make no sense in MSR1a.

 No sense.

 Contrary to what people think, it does NOT improve the convergence to
 fix the positions of certain atoms, and I consider it to be
 inappropriate physics. The reason is that the convergence of MSR1a
 depends upon the number of clusters of eigenvalues the combined
 density-atoms problem, not on the number of atoms. Indeed, this is
 also true of PORT and other methods such as conjugant gradients. Alas,
 the unpublished literature in DFT (and other fields) gets this wrong.

 N.B., if instead by frozen atoms you mean ones which have via
 symmetry no forces, this is different and indicates that there is
 something wrong with your structure.

 On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Salman Zarrini
 salman.zarr...@tu-darmstadt.de wrote:
  
  Dear Wien2k user,
 
  All the convergence criteria including energy, charge and total force
  on all the free atoms have already met their thresholds in my MSR1a
  calculation, however, the total force on all the frozen atoms are far
  away from the force convergence threshold, and so, the job is still
  running. So, I was wondering if the frozen atoms are included from
  force convergence in a MSR1a minimization? If so, is there any way to
  exclude frozen atoms and if does it make sense?
 
  Cheers,
 
  Salman Zarrini
  
 
  ___
  Wien mailing list
  Wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
  http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
  SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:
 http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html



 --
 Professor Laurence Marks
 Department of Materials Science and Engineering
 Northwestern University
 www.numis.northwestern.edu 1-847-491-3996
 Co-Editor, Acta Cryst A
 Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what
 nobody else has thought
 Albert Szent-Gyorgi

___
Wien mailing list
Wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:  
http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html


Re: [Wien] Force on frozen atoms in a MSR1a

2014-05-13 Thread Peter Blaha

I also asume that you are constraining positions in case.inM .
There are of course cases where constraining atomic positions makes a lot of 
sense, but
in any case if a scheme offers a feature, it should work.

And in fact, it works perfectly well with MSR1a. We use it often and it does NOT
prevent the automatic stop.

I guess you are fooled by the fact that the forces on the other atoms might 
already be
smaller than the convergence criterium, however, MSR1a still moves around the 
positions
of some atoms and if the movement is too large, the convergence criterium is not
fulfilled. You can see this in the :FR label

This feature is in particular useful if there is a soft potential energy 
landscape and small
forces move atoms a long way. In this way false convergence is circumvented.

You can always change to MSR1 by using   touch .minstop   and it will continue 
to fully converge
the forces at fixed positions. Eventually you may observe that the converged 
forces
are bigger than the threshold and the small non-scf forces came from a balance 
of
non-scf and atomic movements.


Am 13.05.2014 16:36, schrieb Salman Zarrini:


Dear Wien2k user,

All the convergence criteria including energy, charge and total force on all 
the free atoms have already met their thresholds in my MSR1a calculation, 
however, the total
force on all the frozen atoms are far away from the force convergence 
threshold, and so, the job is still running. So, I was wondering if the frozen 
atoms are included from
force convergence in a MSR1a minimization? If so, is there any way to exclude 
frozen atoms and if does it make sense?

Cheers,

Salman Zarrini


___
Wien mailing list
Wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:  
http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html


--
-
Peter Blaha
Inst. Materials Chemistry, TU Vienna
Getreidemarkt 9, A-1060 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43-1-5880115671
Fax: +43-1-5880115698
email: pbl...@theochem.tuwien.ac.at
-
___
Wien mailing list
Wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:  
http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html


[Wien] optical properties for metals

2014-05-13 Thread ben amara imen
Hello,


I'm working on half-metal compound. I have calculated the optical
properties for spin up (it is a semiconductor). Now , I want to calculate
the optical features for spin down where the herein compound is a metal. My
question is :

To calculate the optical properties for metal , I follow the same steps
done for spin up ( Semiconductor) but in case.inkram I put 1 fro intrabands
transitions ( 1 means yes) ???

Waiting your reply and Thanks in advance
Best Regards
___
Wien mailing list
Wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:  
http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html