With 300+ atoms, relatively large cutoffs (60/480), several k-points, yes,
the amount of needed RAM memory is large. If you want to stick to your
parameters (cutoffs and k-points) you may reduce the amount of needed
memory by
- parallelizing over as many pools as k-points (avoids "w. buffer" below)
Hello Sergey,
that is strange. I have tried some simple tests too, but I could not
reproduce your issue. An equivalent way to activate the scan mgga
functionals is to put: input_dft = 'MGGA_X_SCAN MGGA_C_SCAN'
You can try with that, but if it still doesn't work, I think I would need
more details a
Dear users,
I'm doing phonon calculation for CaO with following input script:
#!/bin/sh
for a in 6.1141
do
for NK in 11
do
cat > ${a}.in << EOF
&control
calculation = 'scf',
prefix = '${a}'
tprnfor=.true.
tstress=.true.
verbosity='high'
outdir = '/home/user/qha1/'
pseu
Hey,
We all know that Google colab provides free GPU. Can we use QE in Google
colab with GPU acceleration?
I installed pgi compiler and cuda and was successfully in configuring and
making the original qe-gpu at github in Google colab through bash commands.
But on putting input like
/qe-gpu/bin/
Hello Fabrizio, Your suggestion 26.05.2020, 10:36, "Fabrizio Ferrari" :Hello Sergey,that is strange. I have tried some simple tests too, but I could not reproduce your issue. An equivalent way to activate the scan mgga functionals is to put: input_dft = 'MGGA_X_SCAN MGGA_C_SCAN'You can try with th
Hello Fabrizio, Your suggestion (input_dft = 'MGGA_X_SCAN MGGA_C_SCAN') worked. However, I still don't understand why others could use (input_dft = 'scan') without any problem - I searched archive and saw several examples. Also, I used SCAN pseudopotentials from QE website, so in principle I shoul
I don't understand too. I have tried a couple of tests both with 'SCAN' and
with the explicit form 'MGGA_X_SCAN' and they both worked in the same
way.
If your code has not been modified, there must be something very specific
to your input that causes the bug. I'll try to investigate more.
Cheer
Your suggestion (input_dft = 'MGGA_X_SCAN MGGA_C_SCAN') worked.
"Got the code to spit out a number" is not the same as "produced a valid
result". I would wait for an answer from someone knowledgeable on this
subject before spending too much CPU time in this case!
Or even better open an iss
Dear Yuvam Bhateja,
is this use of Google Colab allowed?
Anyway, please post some more details about the configure output message
and the error that you get, otherwise it's really impossible to help you.
Best regards,
Pietro
On 5/26/20 10:31 AM, Yuvam Bhateja wrote:
Hey,
We all know that G
Dear Expert , user and all
I am calculating , the scf ,nscf calculation of B-Zn4Sb3 material . by
PBE-PAW xc . and nscf.out file found the fermi energy = -1.6482 eV
So, i want to know that , negative fermi energy is possible in the qe
calculation or not .
thanks in advance
_
the zero of eigenvalue energy in a solid is arbitrarily set at the
electrostatic average potential.
there is nothing special in the zero value for the eigenvalues in a
solid, in particular it is not the value of the potential at infinite
distance (which cannot be defined in a solid extending t
The 'SCAN' name in qe is a compact notation that is directly translated
into the libxc indexes 263 and 267, equivalent to the functionals MGGA_X_SCAN
and MGGA_C_SCAN.
Regardless the name notation, if you find a line like this: ( 0 0 0
0 0 263 267) in the output, after 'Exchange-correlation'
Dear users,
I am currently trying to run a calculation taking spin-orbit coupling (SOC)
into account, using a hybrid functional (PBE0) for a more accurate
determination of the band gap of my material (FAPbI3). I am running QE 6.4
Trying with SOC alone, no issue. However, when I try to c
Dear Experts, users and all
I found the dipoles of CO2 calculated by Quantum ESPRESSO as :
Computed dipole along edir(3) :
Elec. dipole 0.3112 Ry au, 0.7909 Debye
Ion. dipole 0.8137 Ry au, 2.0683 Debye
Dipole 41.9812 Ry au, 106.7055 Debye
Dipole field 0.5025 Ry au,
I assumed the third value is t
Paolo Giannozzi 于2020年5月26日周二 下午3:24写道:
>
> With 300+ atoms, relatively large cutoffs (60/480), several k-points, yes,
> the amount of needed RAM memory is large. If you want to stick to your
> parameters (cutoffs and k-points) you may reduce the amount of needed memory
> by
> - parallelizing o
An issue with your input is that you place the point where the external
saw-tooth potential
has a discontinuity in its derivative at emaxpos = 0.5 (it is in crystal units,
so because edir = 3,
it means that the potential depends on z and the discontinuity is at (0,0,a/2)).
However, the CO2 molecu
Dear Julien
Follow the links you find in this page
https://www.quantum-espresso.org/pseudopotentials
you should find something suitable for your purpose. I suppose that
the norm conserving, fully relativistic ONCV pseudopotentials might
fit your need.
HTH
Giuseppe
Quoting "JULIEN, CLAUD
Hi Julien
You can also try pseudo-dojo NC potentials (link on QE website). You will find
most elements with and without SOC.
It works pretty well (at least for the cases we have studied..)
Cyrille
Cyrille Barreteau
CEA Saclay, IRAMIS, SPEC Bat. 771
91191 Gif sur Yvette C
Hey everyone,
I am trying to study the effect of pressure on the band structure of *'Si -
simple hexagonal (Phase V)*', which is stable between 17 to 30 GPa (approx.)
Here is a paper published in Nature (
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2150-y), which has a figure with
the band structu
Hi There,
I am a relatively new and unexperienced QE user and am having some difficulty
understanding some of the specifics of non-collinear magnetic calculations. I
want to perform some simple scf calculations on some non-collinear AFM spin
configurations to compare the energy of competing ph
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:43 PM Felix Frontini <
felix.front...@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
I also have a secondary question about scf and nscf estimates of the Fermi
> energy. For the non-magnetic case I have performed a full geometric
> optimization and also have tested convergence with respect to
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 2:34 PM Hongyi Zhao wrote:
Do you mean this is achievable by applying the patch given below?
>
not sure, it depends upon your hardware and many other factors. I am just
suggesting a few things you may try (in addition to the main one: reducing
the cutoff and/or the k-poin
thanks for reply.
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:06 PM Stefano de Gironcoli
wrote:
> the zero of eigenvalue energy in a solid is arbitrarily set at the
> electrostatic average potential.
>
> there is nothing special in the zero value for the eigenvalues in a solid,
> in particular it is not the valu
Paolo Giannozzi 于2020年5月27日周三 上午12:13写道:
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 2:34 PM Hongyi Zhao wrote:
>
>> Do you mean this is achievable by applying the patch given below?
>
>
> not sure, it depends upon your hardware and many other factors. I am just
> suggesting a few things you may try (in additio
Hey,
I want to know if you can compile Quantum ESPRESSO over amd professor which
uses OpenCL I think.
I wish to accelerate my calculations using GPU but Ive amd gpu.
Can anyone help?
Regards
Yuvam Bhateja
___
Quantum ESPRESSO is supported by MaX (www.ma
Dear users,
I'm doing phonon calculation for CaO with following input script:
#!/bin/sh
for a in 6.1141
do
for NK in 11
do
cat > ${a}.in << EOF
&control
calculation = 'scf',
prefix = '${a}'
tprnfor=.true.
tstress=.true.
verbosity='high'
outdir = '/home/user/qha1/'
pseu
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 7:19 AM Pooja Vyas wrote:
> At line 273 of file io_dyn_mat_old.f90 (unit = 1, file = '6.1141.dyn3')
> Fortran runtime error: Bad real number in item 3 of list input
>
> look into file 6.1141.dyn3: likely you will notice something anomalous.
The error message also tells you
Dear users,
Attached file is 6.1141.dyn3. But couldn't find any error.
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:56 AM Paolo Giannozzi
wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 7:19 AM Pooja Vyas wrote:
>
>> At line 273 of file io_dyn_mat_old.f90 (unit = 1, file = '6.1141.dyn3')
>> Fortran runtime error: Bad real numb
For example in line 19:
-7.61366009-13.18724611 3.04861427 5.28035480 -7.61366009-13.18724611
The space between the real and imaginary part of the last complex number
is so small that they merge together (and FORTRAN complains).
Maybe simply adding a white space there (and in all the mul
Respected sir,
My equilibrium lattice parameter is 9.1334 a.u. But I want to compute
phonons on compressing and relaxing the structure, hence the above
calculation is done at 6.1141 a.u. This could be the reason for the
imaginary modes that you are talking about.
Can just removing the spaces solve
30 matches
Mail list logo