Firefly and PC GAMESS-related discussion club

Learn how to ask questions correctly  
We are NATO-free zone

Re^4: FIREFLY based comments on speeds and accuracies of SBKJC vs 6-31G?

Alex Granovsky

Dear Siddheshwar,

Sorry I'm not a specialist in QC computations of molybdenum compounds.

Kind regards,
Alex Granovsky

On Fri Apr 25 '14 7:10am, Siddheshwar Chopra wrote
>Dear Alex,
>In addition to the previous questions, could you also suggest any other better basis sets for 5th row elements which would be a good trade off between speed and accuracy? Say for performing OPT+HESS calculations of MoS2 2D nanosheets.


>On Sat Apr 19 '14 6:32pm, Siddheshwar Chopra wrote
>>Dear Alex,
>>Thats an important information. Thanks again. Alex could you comment on their speeds? Logically if they reduce the no. of basis functions, then they should be really fast. I want to be sure about their speeds before using them. It would be good if you could compare their speeds with the 6-31G and its variants.


>>On Fri Apr 18 '14 9:10pm, Alex Granovsky wrote
>>>Dear Siddheshwar,

>>>for second row elements ECPs are computationally inefficient as
>>>they remove only single orbital (i.e. 1s) per atom. If you use
>>>SBK, you still need to add polarization function(s) to get
>>>reasonable results. SBK basis for Li, Be, B, C, N, O, and F
>>>atoms has only two L-type (i.e. combined S and P) shells for
>>>valence electrons and thus it is (approximately) a DZV-quality
>>>basis set.

>>>Kind regards,
>>>Alex Granovsky
>>>On Tue Apr 15 '14 1:24pm, Siddheshwar Chopra wrote
>>>>Dear All,
>>>>This is the first time I am using SBKJC ECPs for the same samples for which I used 6-31G basis sets. Could anyone point out their speed and accuracy comparisons (Firefly based)? As per Jensen's book I read that for the second row elements, SBKJC gives almost same error as that of TZP. And I have never used TZPs. I have till now worked with only 6-31G and variants.


[ Previous ] [ Next ] [ Index ]           Mon May 5 '14 3:06am
[ Reply ] [ Edit ] [ Delete ]           This message read 685 times