[CP2K:3171] error in bond dissociation energy of gas phase molecule

[Teodoro Laino]

Sure -
but for grid steps (fine density grid on which both decoupler are applied) of 0.2-0.3 Angstrom we are comparing errors of 1.0E-5 (MT) with 1.0E-7(WAVELET).
Given the intrinsic errors reported by Jun (we are talking about errors of 1.0E-2 Hartree here!) for me the above numbers are comparable (I wish to see all the papers out there with an overall accuracy of 1.0E-5 Hartree :) ).

ciao,
Teo

On Apr 6, 2011, at 1:02 PM, hut... at pci.uzh.ch wrote:

> My mistake, I thought I had read OH-.
> Regarding the relative accuracy of the decoupling methods, have a
> look in the paper  
> DOI=10.1063/1.2335442
> where the two methods are compared.
> 
> regards
> 
> Juerg
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Juerg Hutter                         Phone : ++41 44 635 4491
> Physical Chemistry Institute   FAX   : ++41 44 635 6838
> University of Zurich               E-mail:  hut... at pci.uzh.ch
> Winterthurerstrasse 190
> CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> -----cp... at googlegroups.com wrote: -----
> To: cp... at googlegroups.com
> From: Teodoro Laino 
> Sent by: cp... at googlegroups.com
> Date: 04/06/2011 12:58PM
> Subject: Re: [CP2K:3169] error in bond dissociation energy of gas phase molecule
> 
> Hi Juerg,
> 
> the species are not charged - these are all homolytic dissociations.
> Nonetheless the H2O2 may have quite a strong dipole and the decoupling may affect the energetics.
> 
> Just a comment: WAVELET is not superior to MT. The main difference is the cell size. For such small molecules MT may even be better because you can use a smaller cell or at least comparable to the one of WAVELET :).
> 
> Teo
> 
> On Apr 6, 2011, at 12:53 PM, hut... at pci.uzh.ch wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> as you are generating charged species you should use a non-periodic
>> steup.
>> 
>> Try PERIODIC NONE in the &CELL section together with
>> 
>>    &POISSON
>>      PERIODIC NONE
>>      PSOLVER WAVELET    <- MT and ANALYTIC could also work but this is best
>>    &END
>> 
>> in the DFT section.
>> 
>> regards
>> 
>> Juerg
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> Juerg Hutter                         Phone : ++41 44 635 4491
>> Physical Chemistry Institute   FAX   : ++41 44 635 6838
>> University of Zurich               E-mail:  hut... at pci.uzh.ch
>> Winterthurerstrasse 190
>> CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> -----cp... at googlegroups.com wrote: -----
>> To: cp2k <cp... at googlegroups.com>
>> From: Jun 
>> Sent by: cp... at googlegroups.com
>> Date: 04/06/2011 12:43PM
>> Subject: [CP2K:3165] error in bond dissociation energy of gas phase molecule
>> 
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> We did some testing calculations on bond dissociation energies of HO-
>> OH in vacuum using BLYP and B3LYP. We found a large difference from
>> reported results using the same functionals in literature; our numbers
>> are about 0.5 eV too small for both functionals. We also cross-checked
>> the numbers using gaussian program, indeed cp2k gives smaller bond
>> dissociation energy. It is not likely to be BSSE, as we use quite
>> large basis set TZV2P and also checked QZV2P. It is obvious that we
>> got either the total energy of H2O2 too high or the OH energy too low.
>> We checked the energy of H2O --> OH + H, which is very close to what
>> we found in literature. So, the problem appears to be the too high
>> energy of H2O2.
>> Also, we checked CH3-CH3, and found the same: CH3-CH3 bond
>> dissociation energy is 0.3 eV too small for both functionals compared
>> to literature numbers, while the energy of CH4-->CH3+H agrees well.
>> The bond dissociation energies (total energies without ZPE) are
>> summarised below, and inputs for H2O2-->2OH (H2O2.inp and OH.inp) are
>> uploaded.
>>                                 BLYP             B3LYP
>> H2O2-->2OH       2.04 eV (2.67)      1.80 eV  (2.27)
>> H2O-->OH+H        5.10 eV              5.16 eV (5.2)
>> C2H6-->2CH3     3.64 eV (3.92)       3.69 eV (3.97)
>> CH4-->CH3+H    4.69 eV (4.77)       4.75 eV (4.67)
>> Numbers in parentheses are from literature. The geometry is optimised
>> one taken from literature, which is almost the same as optimised by
>> cp2k.
>> Can anyone comment on this? Many thanks in advance.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Jun
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cp2k" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to cp... at googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cp2k+uns... at googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cp2k?hl=en.
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cp2k" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to cp... at googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cp2k+uns... at googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cp2k?hl=en.
>> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cp2k" group.
> To post to this group, send email to cp... at googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cp2k+uns... at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cp2k?hl=en.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cp2k" group.
> To post to this group, send email to cp... at googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cp2k+uns... at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cp2k?hl=en.
>