Dear Jibiao, It’s an issue of credibility - if your input points to an inability of doing a correct calculation noone is going to bother checking further.
I think everyone was already supernice at looking at your input. Nicola Sent from a tiny keyboard... Contact info: http://theossrv1.epfl.ch/Main/Contact On 11 Oct 2017, at 04:13, Jibiao Li <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear Pascal Boulet, Thank you very much for your reply. I think that's not the key of the problem. The question is why QE 6.1 produced acceptable pdos for the CO molecule, but QE 5.1 not. Obviously QE 5.1 has a bug in pdos calculations with kpoints. Davide Ceresoli got similar observation. Does that mean intermolecular interactions in QE 5.1 are problematic? Sincerely Jibiao Li Yangtze Normal University, China ------------------ Original ------------------ From: "pascal.boulet";<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Date: Tue, Oct 10, 2017 05:20 PM To: "PWSCF Forum"<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] Big Bugs in PDOS calculations for Quantum Espresso5.1 Hello, I may be wrong but your input file looks strange: you have an isolated molecule (CO) but you specify 6 as a Bravais lattice and a mesh of k-points. I would choose ibrav=0, kpoint=gamma, assume_isolated=… , and a big box to be sure the molecule is isolated. Perhaps you will get better results with these options…(?) HTH, Pascal - Pascal Boulet - Professor - DEPARTEMENT OF CHEMISTRY Aix-Marseille University - ST JEROME - Avenue Escadrille Normandie Niemen - F-13013 Marseille - FRANCE Tél: +33(0)4 13 55 18 10 - Fax : +33(0)4 13 55 18 50 Site : http://madirel.univ-amu.fr/pages_web_BOULET_PASCAL/infos - Email : [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Le 10 oct. 2017 à 03:37, Jibiao Li <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : Dear QE developers, Here I am reporting a big bug in Quantum Espresso. QE 6.1 and 5.1 yield completely different pdos for a simple CO molecule. The results from QE 5.1 are completely wrong, because 2px and 2py associated with 1pi orbitals should not be splitted into three levels. These outcomes are impossible for DFT calculations. The results from QE 6.1 is also unsatisfying;the 2pz states should not be populated at a deep level below -28 eV? Best Jibiao Li Yangtze Normal Univeristy, China CO.pw.inp &CONTROL calculation = 'scf' , restart_mode = 'from_scratch' , outdir = '/home/jibiao/Calc/CO_Fe100/T/' , pseudo_dir = '/home/jibiao/Codes/pseudo/' , prefix = 'CO' , tstress = .true. , tprnfor = .true. , / &SYSTEM ibrav = 6, celldm(1) = 10.847032278, celldm(3) = 3.28, nat = 2, ntyp = 2, ecutwfc = 29 , ecutrho = 180 , occupations = 'smearing' , degauss = 0.05D0 , smearing = 'methfessel-paxton' , exxdiv_treatment = 'gygi-baldereschi' , / &ELECTRONS mixing_beta = 0.2D0 , diagonalization = 'david' , / ATOMIC_SPECIES C 12.01000 C.pbe-van_ak.UPF O 15.99900 O.pbe-van_ak.UPF ATOMIC_POSITIONS angstrom C 2.870000002 2.869999976 7.634009081 O 2.870000022 2.869999989 8.812254230 K_POINTS automatic 4 4 1 0 0 0 CO.projwfc.in &PROJWFC prefix = 'CO' , outdir = '/home/jibiao/Calc/CO_Fe100/T/' , ngauss = 0 , degauss = 0.01470 , DeltaE = 0.02 , / _______________________________________________ Pw_forum mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum _______________________________________________ Pw_forum mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
_______________________________________________ Pw_forum mailing list [email protected] http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
