It is NOT a divisor ! (does not make sense here). Depending on the method the 4th value is not used or is eg. a friction term for damped newton dynamics.

On 08/04/2017 02:26 AM, Gavin Abo wrote:
Currently too lazy to check, are the data values x y z div (where div is
the divisor)?

So (x y z)/div:

0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 => (0, 0, 0)/0 = undefined [1] <- If it is not giving a
divide by zero error [2], it sounds like the code is able to handle it
and may be setting any of these divisions to 0.

0.0. 0.0 0.0 1.0 => (0, 0, 0)/1 = (0, 0, 0) <- This may be safer to use.



On 8/3/2017 9:26 AM, fatima DFT wrote:
Thank you very much Sir.
I feel relax now.
I did a heavy calculation using 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 instead of 0.0. 0.0
0.0 1.0

So I was worried to repeat the calculation by fixing the position with
0.0. 0.0 0.0 1.0.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Laurence Marks
< <>> wrote:


    On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:49 AM, fatima DFT <
    <>> wrote:

        Dear Prof. Peter, Oleg and Marks,

        I have two queries for case.inM


        I stuck on case.inM file where I want to fix the positions of
        the heavier atom for which I do not want to relax the structure.

    A comment: fixing atoms does not do what people think, in general
    it does not make the convergence of QM methods faster (it can for
    CG). The convergence depends upon the number and density of the
    elastic eigenvectors  (PORT) and the elastic-electronic system

        In one thread Prof Peter
        mentioned keeping 0 0 0 0 in the respective row of atom that I
        want to constrain. But this four zeros means the entire line
        should be zero

        0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   #Atom    1 Generated by pairhess   >>> Say
        it is for La atom.

        As per Prof Marks
        Prof. Oleg

        The only first three number should be zero

        0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0   #Atom    1 Generated by pairhess

        Could you please clear my doubt that:

        How the results will differ if I will use "0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
        #Atom    1 Generated by pairhess" instead of 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 ?

    I am 99% confident that they are equivalent.


        If I use "x pairhess" to generate the case.inM then does it
        copy the case.inM according to the structure files? I just
        tested it for two different structures and I saw two different
        kind of case.inM.

    Yes, different structures with different symmetries have different
    symmetry constrained sites so different case.inM.

        Thank you in advance


    Professor Laurence Marks
    "Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think
    what nobody else has thought", Albert Szent-Gyorgi
    <> ; Corrosion in 4D: <>
    Partner of the CFW 100% program for gender
    equity, <>
    Co-Editor, Acta Cryst A

    Wien mailing list

Wien mailing list

Wien mailing list


Peter BLAHA, Inst.f. Materials Chemistry, TU Vienna, A-1060 Vienna
Phone: +43-1-58801-165300             FAX: +43-1-58801-165982
Email:    WIEN2k:
Wien mailing list

Reply via email to