Re: [Wien] f orbital under an external magnetic field

2015-08-06 Thread pieper

Dear Bin Shao,

unfortunately I am travelling and won't be able to contribute during the 
next days. I am looking forward to comments from people with experience 
in calculations with rare earths.


May I just ask why you go for the energy and not for the magnetization 
or the susceptibility? If there is some change of the crystal field 
ground state this should show. From your calculation you get the size of 
the magnetic moments for a given field, from that you get a 
susceptibility. From what you say something happens around 4 T. I cannot 
guess from the information I have what, but I would expect it to show in 
the susceptibility as well.


Good luck with this interesting problem

Martin Pieper


---
Dr. Martin Pieper
Karl-Franzens University
Institute of Physics
Universitätsplatz 5
A-8010 Graz
Austria
Tel.: +43-(0)316-380-8564


Am 06.08.2015 15:47, schrieb Bin Shao:

Dear Martin Pieper,

Thank you for your comments!

Actually, I intend to demonstrate that the energy difference between
the ground state of Er^3+ (S=3/2; L=6; J=15/2) and the excited state
(S=3/2; L=0; J=3/2) can be tuned by the external magnetic field, With
the magnetic filed and the crystal field, the excited state splits
into four states, |+3/2, |+1/2, |-1/2, and |-3/2. For the 45 Tesla
magnetic field, the delta energy between the |+3/2 and |-3/2 is over
10 meV. Since we can not directly get the excited state in wien2k,
even by forcing the occupation number, the calculation will still be
trick. 

However, because the spin quantum number of the two states is the same
(S=3/2), there is no spin flip from the ground state to the excited
state. In this case, we can estimate the energy difference between the
ground state and the excited state by calculating the energy
difference between the occupied states of f electron in minority spin
of the ground state and the unoccupied counterparts in minority spin
of the ground state. The energy difference should become smaller with
increasing the magnetic field, which can be attributed to the lower in
energy of the |-3/2 state relative to the |+/-3/2 state with no
magnetic field.

Since the energy shift is in the magnitude of meV, we can not seen
this shift from the dos calculation due to the smear of the dos. Since
the f band is usually very local and the band is very flat, so I
checked the eigenvalues of the 7 f-electron at the Gamma point and try
to show the energy shift from the variations of the eigenvalues.
However, the results show that there is only an energy shift from the
0 T to 4 T. When the magnetic filed is increasing, the eigenvalues are
almost the same as that of 4 T.


This most probably is the old problem of the energy zero in
disguise.


This may be the problem. But I have calculated all the energy
differences between the 3 unoccupied and 4 occupied states of f
electron in minority spin, the 12 (3*4) values are keep the same trend
while the magnetic filed is varied and they are all flat. For the
different f states, they get different J and the energy shifts
(g_J*mu_B*J*B) induced by the magnetic filed should be also different.
So I am confused. It should be noted that the energy difference is
independent to the energy zero. 

Best,

Bin

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 7:23 PM, pieper pie...@ifp.tuwien.ac.at
wrote:


As an afterthought:

This most probably is the old problem of the energy zero in
disguise. The Zeeman interaction you estimated and as accounted for
in Wien2k is basically g*mu_B*S*B. It gives you the energy
difference between a moment pointing up and one pointing down.
However, it has a vanishing trace, the zero is at B=0 and the center
stays there.

Best regards,

Martin Pieper

---
Dr. Martin Pieper
Karl-Franzens University
Institute of Physics
Universitätsplatz 5
A-8010 Graz
Austria
Tel.: +43-(0)316-380-8564 [3]

Am 06.08.2015 04:55, schrieb Bin Shao:


Dear all,

I made calculations of a compound with Er^3+(4f^11 5d^0 6s^0,
ground
state S=3/2, L=6, J=15/2) doping under an external magnetic
field. I
got the corresponding occupation of Er^3+ with 7 electrons in
majority
spin and 4 electrons in minority spin. With soc including, I got
eigenvalues at Gamma point of the Er^3+ under the magnetic field
from
4 Tesla to 45 Tesla. However, the picture indicates that the
eigenvalues with the different magnetic fields almost keep the
same as
that of 4 T. Why? According to a simple estimation, the magnetic
field
of 45 T will introduce an energy shift about 10 meV, that would
definitely be seen from the figure.

Any comments will be appreciated. Thank you in advance!

Best regards,

Bin

___
Wien mailing list
Wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien [1]
SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:




http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html

[2]


___
Wien mailing list
Wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at

Re: [Wien] structure-optimization

2015-08-06 Thread Seyyed Amir Abbas Emami
​Thank you dear Luarence 

I run the volume optimization with that script but there is two question?

1- Did the lattice obtain from equation of state, optimized with both degree of 
freedoms (lattice parameter and atomic position) ?
2-How can i find the optimized atomic position from the results?
___
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] f orbital under an external magnetic field

2015-08-06 Thread Bin Shao
Dear Martin Pieper,

Thank you for your reply.

Actually, the energy difference can be observed by the photoluminescence
experiment. I want to make a demonstration for the experiment from
first-principles calculation.

May I just ask why you go for the energy and not for the magnetization or
 the susceptibility?


I don't know how to calculate the susceptibility of a material from
first-principles calculation. According to the definition, it is a constant
indicates the response of a material to an external magnetic field. I have
got the magnetic moments for a give field, then how to get the
susceptibility? Besides, I think the magnetic moments are almost the same
as 4T when I changed the magnitude of the magnetic field.

  If there is some change of the crystal field ground state this should
 show.


Do you mean that the magnetic filed may be change the crystal field? I am
not quite sure how to connect these two things, the magnetic field and
crystal field.

Best,

Bin

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:35 AM, pieper pie...@ifp.tuwien.ac.at wrote:

 Dear Bin Shao,

 unfortunately I am travelling and won't be able to contribute during the
 next days. I am looking forward to comments from people with experience in
 calculations with rare earths.

 May I just ask why you go for the energy and not for the magnetization or
 the susceptibility? If there is some change of the crystal field ground
 state this should show. From your calculation you get the size of the
 magnetic moments for a given field, from that you get a susceptibility.
 From what you say something happens around 4 T. I cannot guess from the
 information I have what, but I would expect it to show in the
 susceptibility as well.

 Good luck with this interesting problem

 Martin Pieper


 ---
 Dr. Martin Pieper
 Karl-Franzens University
 Institute of Physics
 Universitätsplatz 5
 A-8010 Graz
 Austria
 Tel.: +43-(0)316-380-8564


 Am 06.08.2015 15:47, schrieb Bin Shao:

 Dear Martin Pieper,

 Thank you for your comments!

 Actually, I intend to demonstrate that the energy difference between
 the ground state of Er^3+ (S=3/2; L=6; J=15/2) and the excited state
 (S=3/2; L=0; J=3/2) can be tuned by the external magnetic field, With
 the magnetic filed and the crystal field, the excited state splits
 into four states, |+3/2, |+1/2, |-1/2, and |-3/2. For the 45 Tesla
 magnetic field, the delta energy between the |+3/2 and |-3/2 is over
 10 meV. Since we can not directly get the excited state in wien2k,
 even by forcing the occupation number, the calculation will still be
 trick.

 However, because the spin quantum number of the two states is the same
 (S=3/2), there is no spin flip from the ground state to the excited
 state. In this case, we can estimate the energy difference between the
 ground state and the excited state by calculating the energy
 difference between the occupied states of f electron in minority spin
 of the ground state and the unoccupied counterparts in minority spin
 of the ground state. The energy difference should become smaller with
 increasing the magnetic field, which can be attributed to the lower in
 energy of the |-3/2 state relative to the |+/-3/2 state with no
 magnetic field.

 Since the energy shift is in the magnitude of meV, we can not seen
 this shift from the dos calculation due to the smear of the dos. Since
 the f band is usually very local and the band is very flat, so I
 checked the eigenvalues of the 7 f-electron at the Gamma point and try
 to show the energy shift from the variations of the eigenvalues.
 However, the results show that there is only an energy shift from the
 0 T to 4 T. When the magnetic filed is increasing, the eigenvalues are
 almost the same as that of 4 T.

 This most probably is the old problem of the energy zero in
 disguise.


 This may be the problem. But I have calculated all the energy
 differences between the 3 unoccupied and 4 occupied states of f
 electron in minority spin, the 12 (3*4) values are keep the same trend
 while the magnetic filed is varied and they are all flat. For the
 different f states, they get different J and the energy shifts
 (g_J*mu_B*J*B) induced by the magnetic filed should be also different.
 So I am confused. It should be noted that the energy difference is
 independent to the energy zero.

 Best,

 Bin

 On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 7:23 PM, pieper pie...@ifp.tuwien.ac.at
 wrote:

 As an afterthought:

 This most probably is the old problem of the energy zero in
 disguise. The Zeeman interaction you estimated and as accounted for
 in Wien2k is basically g*mu_B*S*B. It gives you the energy
 difference between a moment pointing up and one pointing down.
 However, it has a vanishing trace, the zero is at B=0 and the center
 stays there.

 Best regards,

 Martin Pieper

 ---
 Dr. Martin Pieper
 Karl-Franzens University
 Institute of Physics
 Universitätsplatz 5
 A-8010 Graz
 Austria
 Tel.: +43-(0)316-380-8564 [3]

 Am 06.08.2015 04:55, schrieb Bin Shao:

 Dear all,

 I 

[Wien] 100+ atomic numbers

2015-08-06 Thread foyevtsova
Dear wien2k community,

is it possible to do a calculation for an element with the atomic number
greater than 100? I am getting an error when the struct file is read.

Thank you,
Kateryna Foyevtsova

___
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] 100+ atomic numbers

2015-08-06 Thread Gavin Abo
It might help if you mention specifically which atomic number you are 
try to use.


Also, the error occurs when the struct file is read by what (StructGen, 
lapw0, ...)?  What is the exact error message given by the program?


You can specify elements to atomic number 103 in StructGen.  If you 
enter an element name with a higher atomic number like Rf (with atomic 
number 104) [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherfordium ], after 
running instgen_lapw, you should find in the case.inst file:


WARNING: specified Element 'Rf' not in database!

I notice that if you enter Fm in StructGen, it looks like the atomic 
number 100 is correctly written to case.struct, but the display is cut 
off in StructGen showing 00.0 instead of 100.0.


You might be able to fix that by changing line 154 in 
SRC_w2web/libs/struct.pl of WIEN2k 14.2 from


$s_zz[$i] = substr($_,56,5);

to

$s_zz[$i] = substr($_,55,5);

On 8/6/2015 4:59 PM, foyevts...@th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de wrote:

Dear wien2k community,

is it possible to do a calculation for an element with the atomic number
greater than 100? I am getting an error when the struct file is read.

Thank you,
Kateryna Foyevtsova

___
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] structure-optimization

2015-08-06 Thread Seyyed Amir Abbas Emami
​thank you very much

But actually i was wondering can i use this script in volume optimization 
(optimize.job) to satisfy both force and charge convergence to obtain both 
optimized lattice parameters and atomic position of one with free internal 
parameters:

min -j -I runsp_lapw -I -fc 1.0 -i 400 -in1new 5 -cc 0.0001 -p

___
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] structure-optimization

2015-08-06 Thread Laurence Marks
I see no reason why not.

BUT, I strongly suggest that you do not use -in1new  -min at the same
time. The -in1new option creates problems for MSR1a according to tests that
I did some time ago.

Also, -cc 0.0001 is a very high convergence leve, I would use something
more like -cc 0.0005 or -cc 0.001

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Seyyed Amir Abbas Emami 
a.a.em...@birjand.ac.ir wrote:

 ​thank you very much

 But actually i was wondering can i use this script in volume optimization
 (optimize.job) to satisfy both force and charge convergence to obtain both
 optimized lattice parameters and atomic position of one with free internal
 parameters:

 min -j -I runsp_lapw -I -fc 1.0 -i 400 -in1new 5 -cc 0.0001 -p




-- 
Professor Laurence Marks
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Northwestern University
www.numis.northwestern.edu
Corrosion in 4D: MURI4D.numis.northwestern.edu
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] f orbital under an external magnetic field

2015-08-06 Thread Bin Shao
Dear Martin Pieper,

Thank you for your comments!

Actually, I intend to demonstrate that the energy difference between the
ground state of Er^3+ (S=3/2; L=6; J=15/2) and the excited state (S=3/2;
L=0; J=3/2) can be tuned by the external magnetic field, With the magnetic
filed and the crystal field, the excited state splits into four states,
|+3/2, |+1/2, |-1/2, and |-3/2. For the 45 Tesla magnetic field, the
delta energy between the |+3/2 and |-3/2 is over 10 meV. Since we can not
directly get the excited state in wien2k, even by forcing the occupation
number, the calculation will still be trick.

However, because the spin quantum number of the two states is the same
(S=3/2), there is no spin flip from the ground state to the excited state.
In this case, we can estimate the energy difference between the ground
state and the excited state by calculating the energy difference between
the occupied states of f electron in minority spin of the ground state and
the unoccupied counterparts in minority spin of the ground state. The
energy difference should become smaller with increasing the magnetic field,
which can be attributed to the lower in energy of the |-3/2 state relative
to the |+/-3/2 state with no magnetic field.

Since the energy shift is in the magnitude of meV, we can not seen this
shift from the dos calculation due to the smear of the dos. Since the f
band is usually very local and the band is very flat, so I checked the
eigenvalues of the 7 f-electron at the Gamma point and try to show the
energy shift from the variations of the eigenvalues. However, the results
show that there is only an energy shift from the 0 T to 4 T. When the
magnetic filed is increasing, the eigenvalues are almost the same as that
of 4 T.

This most probably is the old problem of the energy zero in disguise.


This may be the problem. But I have calculated all the energy differences
between the 3 unoccupied and 4 occupied states of f electron in minority
spin, the 12 (3*4) values are keep the same trend while the magnetic filed
is varied and they are all flat. For the different f states, they get
different J and the energy shifts (g_J*\mu_B*J*B) induced by the magnetic
filed should be also different. So I am confused. It should be noted that
the energy difference is independent to the energy zero.

Best,

Bin

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 7:23 PM, pieper pie...@ifp.tuwien.ac.at wrote:

 As an afterthought:

 This most probably is the old problem of the energy zero in disguise. The
 Zeeman interaction you estimated and as accounted for in Wien2k is
 basically g*\mu_B*S*B. It gives you the energy difference between a moment
 pointing up and one pointing down. However, it has a vanishing trace, the
 zero is at B=0 and the center stays there.

 Best regards,

 Martin Pieper


 ---
 Dr. Martin Pieper
 Karl-Franzens University
 Institute of Physics
 Universitätsplatz 5
 A-8010 Graz
 Austria
 Tel.: +43-(0)316-380-8564


 Am 06.08.2015 04:55, schrieb Bin Shao:

 Dear all,

 I made calculations of a compound with Er^3+(4f^11 5d^0 6s^0, ground
 state S=3/2, L=6, J=15/2) doping under an external magnetic field. I
 got the corresponding occupation of Er^3+ with 7 electrons in majority
 spin and 4 electrons in minority spin. With soc including, I got
 eigenvalues at Gamma point of the Er^3+ under the magnetic field from
 4 Tesla to 45 Tesla. However, the picture indicates that the
 eigenvalues with the different magnetic fields almost keep the same as
 that of 4 T. Why? According to a simple estimation, the magnetic field
 of 45 T will introduce an energy shift about 10 meV, that would
 definitely be seen from the figure.

 Any comments will be appreciated. Thank you in advance!

 Best regards,

 Bin


 ___
 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 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




-- 
Bin Shao
Postdoc
Department of Physics, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084, P. R. China
Email: binshao1...@gmail.com
___
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