<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple"> <div class="WordSection1"> Hi Daniel<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I am afraid that you will have to provide your full input and output (OT run and DIAG restart), if you want to get further hints from the forum.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Matthias<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> From: cp...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cp...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Matt W Sent: 11 May 2018 18:25 To: cp2k Subject: Re: [CP2K:10305] Re: MO coefficients not normalized?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> Are you sure it is restarting correctly? Do you have, for instance, a name of a restart file that does not exist?<o:p></o:p> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> Matt<o:p></o:p> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 4:43:08 PM UTC+1, Dan_M wrote:<o:p></o:p> <div> I just checked with DZVP-MOLOPT-SR and I get the same bahaviour (as before, previously converged without any issue with OT at EPS_SCF 1.0E-8): Step Update method Time Convergence Total energy Change ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 1.9 1.01887548 -2483.2801991206 -2.48E+03 2 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.17795477 -2483.2664599411 1.37E-02 3 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.15515820 -2483.2705252108 -4.07E-03 4 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.13461919 -2483.2732304534 -2.71E-03 5 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.11636509 -2483.2750698192 -1.84E-03 6 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.10030721 -2483.2763421133 -1.27E-03 7 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.08629078 -2483.2772336240 -8.92E-04 8 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 3.3 0.07412833 -2483.2778639847 -6.30E-04 9 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.06362153 -2483.2783121408 -4.48E-04 10 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.05457503 -2483.2786314448 -3.19E-04 11 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.04680461 -2483.2788586871 -2.27E-04 12 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 1.01928993 -2483.2790196613 -1.61E-04 13 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.17939488 -2483.2653152844 1.37E-02 14 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.15625219 -2483.2694676081 -4.15E-03 15 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.13547789 -2483.2722671414 -2.80E-03 16 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.11706181 -2483.2741996740 -1.93E-03 17 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.10089024 -2483.2755600100 -1.36E-03 18 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.08679173 -2483.2765326974 -9.73E-04 19 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.07456783 -2483.2772368267 -7.04E-04 20 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.06401302 -2483.2777514316 -5.15E-04 21 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.05492734 -2483.2781302721 -3.79E-04 22 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 1.00816260 -2483.2784106908 -2.80E-04 23 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.20701607 -2483.2636042414 1.48E-02 24 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 2.2 0.16102347 -2483.2681624989 -4.56E-03 .. Is it worth to try with other settings for the diagonalization/mixing or should I look somewhere else? Thanks a lot D. El viernes, 11 de mayo de 2018, 14:32:12 (UTC+2), Matthias Krack escribió:<o:p></o:p> <div> <div> Hi Daniel<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> did you check if other basis sets like DZVP-MOLOPT-SR cause the same behaviour?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Best regards<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Matthias<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> From: cp...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cp...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan_M Sent: 11 May 2018 11:48 To: cp2k Subject: Re: [CP2K:10302] Re: MO coefficients not normalized?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <div> Hi Matthias, I did what you suggested and even though it seemed to make the convergence a bit smoother for OT, still it does not improve the diagonalization. Specifically, I set EPS_DEFAULT 1.0E-14 and dropped the *_CUTOFF and XC smoothing, and converged with OT and EPS_SCF 1.0E-8. With this optimized wfn I started the diagonalization (algorithm standard, direct_p_mixing, alpha 0.1) and doesn't work: Step Update method Time Convergence Total energy Change ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 5.9 1.04345518 -2483.7051317469 -2.48E+03 2 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.2 0.21526298 -2483.6950681260 1.01E-02 3 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.3 0.18583657 -2483.6983718168 -3.30E-03 4 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.2 0.15912799 -2483.7005021331 -2.13E-03 5 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.6 0.13537782 -2483.7018913141 -1.39E-03 6 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 7.2 0.11457317 -2483.7028012278 -9.10E-04 7 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.2 0.09655329 -2483.7033951772 -5.94E-04 8 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.2 0.08107945 -2483.7037777217 -3.83E-04 9 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.4 0.06788010 -2483.7040173663 -2.40E-04 10 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.2 1.05830128 -2483.7041598673 -1.43E-04 11 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.4 0.27282434 -2483.6885022250 1.57E-02 12 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.2 0.19477670 -2483.6934564774 -4.95E-03 13 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.3 0.15900657 -2483.6966522751 -3.20E-03 14 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.3 0.13501187 -2483.6987689554 -2.12E-03 15 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.2 0.11406673 -2483.7002037460 -1.43E-03 16 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.3 0.09597285 -2483.7011950370 -9.91E-04 17 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.3 0.08046688 -2483.7018901542 -6.95E-04 18 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.3 0.06782297 -2483.7023829252 -4.93E-04 19 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.3 1.04290747 -2483.7027348383 -3.52E-04 20 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.2 0.21550410 -2483.6899786616 1.28E-02 21 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.2 0.18544263 -2483.6942956542 -4.32E-03 .... BTW, that was after I set EPS_DIIS in &SCF below EPS_SCF, since otherwise things get much worse after DIIS starts: Step Update method Time Convergence Total energy Change ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 5.9 1.04345518 -2483.7051317469 -2.48E+03 2 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.5 0.21526298 -2483.6950681260 1.01E-02 3 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.5 0.18583657 -2483.6983718168 -3.30E-03 4 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.6 0.15912799 -2483.7005021331 -2.13E-03 5 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.5 0.13537782 -2483.7018913141 -1.39E-03 6 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.5 0.11457317 -2483.7028012278 -9.10E-04 7 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.5 0.09655329 -2483.7033951772 -5.94E-04 8 DIIS/Diag. 0.26E-02 6.6 1.09993086 -2483.7037777217 -3.83E-04 9 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.5 98.45213358 -2482.2918306873 1.41E+00 10 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.5 88.61338472 -2479.1562224901 3.14E+00 11 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.4 738.84827806 -2413.5998990757 6.56E+01 12 P_Mix/Diag. 0.10E+00 6.5 726.38204744 -2239.0573891721 1.75E+02 ... So probably you are right, there may be something else wrong. The possible issue that comes to my mind is that the system is not that simple. It is a water slab periodic in 2 dimensions and with a ~12 angstroms spacing in the 3rd dimension, treated as fully periodic (e.g. &Poisson periodic XYZ) but I made sure that the net dipole is very small and slab-slab interactions are negligible for the neutral water slab. Then there is a proton placed close to a water in the slab surface, geometry very far from optimal (some could say "unphysical" but it should be treatable --and actually it works with OT--, H+ is 1.14 angstrom away from the closest O and 1.47 to the closest H). I am aware that of course I can not expect to converge the wfn for any kind of crazy geometry, but what I don't understand is why if OT converges (despite all the issues like charged cell, exotic geometry, etc) then diagonalization does not. Is it possible that simply the difficult geometry screws up that much the diagonalization of the OT converged wfn? Thanks a lot for your comments, Daniel El jueves, 10 de mayo de 2018, 18:43:47 (UTC+2), Matthias Krack escribió:<o:p></o:p> <div> <div> Hi Daniel<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> If your preceding OT run converged properly (tightly), the restart with diagonalisation should converge immediately or after a few steps, otherwise something is wrong.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> There are some issues in your input which I would change without claiming that this will solve your problem. I would<o:p></o:p> 1) use a smaller EPS_DEFAULT, e.g. at least 1.0E-12 (smaller is also fine), 1.0E-10 is not tight enough<o:p></o:p> 2) drop the *_CUTOFF values in the &XC section unless you have a good reason to set some of these values explicitly<o:p></o:p> 3) drop the smoothing unless you have any good reason to use it (e.g. with BLYP), since you are using with 700Ry a rather high cutoff anyway<o:p></o:p> 4) use diagonalisation with direct_p_mixing and a mixing alpha of about 0.1 for restart, if that does not converge immediately or at least within a few SCF steps starting from a converged OT run, then most likely something else is wrong and it is unlikely that any other mixing method will work better and solve the problem<o:p></o:p> I understood that you are dealing with a condensed phase system. If yes, did you check that the QZV3P basis sets you are using are suited for that setup?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Best regards<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Matthias<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> From: cp...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cp...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan_M Sent: 10 May 2018 18:04 To: cp2k Subject: Re: [CP2K:10300] Re: MO coefficients not normalized?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <div> Hi Matthias, yest I did but it does not converge, for instance this is what I get when using Davidson diagonalization (defaults parameters for &MIXING): Step Update method Time Convergence Total energy Change ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 8.1 0.00309369 -2483.1531852407 -2.48E+03 2 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.5 0.15334223 -2483.1531847710 4.70E-07 3 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.4 0.14839060 -2483.1496260655 3.56E-03 4 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.4 0.06204907 -2483.1516643558 -2.04E-03 5 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.4 0.72149356 -2483.1519086893 -2.44E-04 6 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.4 0.44697821 -2483.0750573108 7.69E-02 7 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.4 0.21458187 -2483.1176203039 -4.26E-02 8 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.4 0.09370387 -2483.1338242392 -1.62E-02 9 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.4 1.08948074 -2483.1415463487 -7.72E-03 10 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.4 0.67563179 -2482.9378947719 2.04E-01 11 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.4 0.32819448 -2483.0539735944 -1.16E-01 12 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.4 0.15275080 -2483.0996929120 -4.57E-02 13 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.4 1.06118539 -2483.1220162257 -2.23E-02 14 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.4 0.77108692 -2482.9213332983 2.01E-01 15 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.4 0.32374229 -2483.0459012328 -1.25E-01 16 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.4 0.16259590 -2483.0951505330 -4.92E-02 17 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.3 0.10138969 -2483.1193594430 -2.42E-02 18 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.4 0.06424836 -2483.1326526033 -1.33E-02 19 P_Mix/Dav. 0.40E+00 2.4 0.03960077 -2483.1403233567 -7.67E-03 ... Similar behavior happens with the other diagonalization flavors, I am playing around with the mixing parameters but no success so far. In passing there is a curious thing I observed with OT: the wfn is converged and the eigenvalues are printed in the PDOS but they are not printed correctly together with the MO coefficients (I request eigenvalues, eigenvectors and occupations), instead I get: MO EIGENVALUES, MO OCCUPATION NUMBERS, AND SPHERICAL MO EIGENVECTORS 1 2 3 4 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 2.000000 2.000000 2.000000 2.000000 1 1 H 1s 0.041699 -0.021600 0.017105 0.034420 2 1 H 2s -0.001594 0.001644 -0.000409 -0.000568 3 1 H 3s -0.011532 0.007340 -0.005061 -0.008943 4 1 H 4s -0.005753 0.006757 -0.005764 -0.009668 ... For what it is worth, I am using version 5.1 (svn 18091) and the relevant parts of the electronic structure are these (for the diagonalization I just turn &OT F and uncomment the relevant parts; also I tried with and without ADDED_MOS/NLUMO etc etc...) &FORCE_EVAL METHOD QS &DFT CHARGE 1 BASIS_SET_FILE_NAME ./GTH_BASIS_SETS POTENTIAL_FILE_NAME ./GTH_POTENTIALS &PRINT &MULLIKEN ON &EACH JUST_ENERGY 1 &END EACH &END &HIRSHFELD &EACH JUST_ENERGY 1 &END EACH &END &MO_CUBES WRITE_CUBE F ! NLUMO 576 &END &MO ON &EACH JUST_ENERGY 1 QS_SCF 0 &END ! MO_INDEX_RANGE 1 1152 EIGENVALUES EIGENVECTORS OCCUPATION_NUMBERS &END &PDOS &EACH JUST_ENERGY 1 &END APPEND ! NLUMO 576 &END ! &AO_MATRICES ON ! OVERLAP T ! &END &END &MGRID REL_CUTOFF 70.0 NGRIDS 5 CUTOFF 700.0 &END MGRID &QS METHOD GPW EPS_DEFAULT 1.0E-10 MAP_CONSISTENT &END QS &SCF &PRINT &RESTART BACKUP_COPIES 1 &END RESTART &END PRINT SCF_GUESS RESTART ! ADDED_MOS 576 MAX_SCF 20 EPS_SCF 2.0E-7 ! EPS_LUMO 2.0E-7 ! MAX_ITER_LUMO 10000 &OUTER_SCF EPS_SCF 2.0E-7 MAX_SCF 300 &END OUTER_SCF ! &MIXING ! ALPHA 0.01 ! &END ! &DIAGONALIZATION ! ALGORITHM DAVIDSON ! &END &OT T MINIMIZER DIIS PRECONDITIONER FULL_KINETIC ! FULL_ALL SAFE_DIIS T &END OT &END SCF &XC &XC_FUNCTIONAL PBE &END XC_FUNCTIONAL DENSITY_CUTOFF 1.0000000000000000E-10 GRADIENT_CUTOFF 1.0000000000000000E-10 TAU_CUTOFF 1.0000000000000000E-10 &XC_GRID XC_SMOOTH_RHO NN50 XC_DERIV NN50_SMOOTH &END XC_GRID &END XC &POISSON PERIODIC XYZ &END POISSON &END DFT &SUBSYS &CELL ABC 1.5200509080292399E+01 3.3000000000000E+01 1.3178605533387005E+01 PERIODIC XYZ &END CELL &TOPOLOGY COORD_FILE_NAME ./<a href="http://mystruc.xyz" target="_blank">mystruc.xyz</a> COORDINATE XYZ &END TOPOLOGY &KIND O BASIS_SET QZV3P-GTH-q6 POTENTIAL GTH-PBE-q6 &END KIND &KIND H BASIS_SET QZV3P-GTH-q1 POTENTIAL GTH-PBE-q1 &END KIND &END &END SUBSYS &PRINT &TOTAL_NUMBERS ON &END TOTAL_NUMBERS &END &END FORCE_EVAL Thanks again and best Daniel El jueves, 10 de mayo de 2018, 14:23:28 (UTC+2), Matthias Krack escribió:<o:p></o:p> <div> <div> Dear Daniel<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Did you try to restart with DIAGONALISATION and ADDED_MOS using a wavefunction restart file from a well-converged OT run?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Best regards<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Matthias<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> From: cp...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cp...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan_M Sent: 10 May 2018 13:46 To: cp2k Subject: [CP2K:10298] Re: MO coefficients not normalized?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <div> Thanks a lot Matt for your very fast answer. I was so concerned with technical issues that I forgot about the basics. Actually maybe you or some other expert can help me out with the actual issue I am having. The situation is this: I want to get the MOs (eigenvalues and eigenvectors) for both the occupied and unoccupied states in a somewhat involved system (~100-200 waters plus one proton, i.e. total charge +1, geometry let's say far from any local minima). For this I tried two routes: 1) converge the wfn with OT and request NLUMO to be computed after convergence. With this I find two problems: - The calculation of the LUMOs does not converge (I get "WARNING : did not converge in ot_eigensolver" even if I increase MAX_ITER_LUMO to 1000 which I think should be enough). I note that I could get it converged for EPS_LUMO 1.0E-4 but I tried with a much tighter convergence (2.0E-07 as with the occupied states) since what I get otherwise is the energy of the LUMO below that of the HOMO. I am aware of this happening often when the system is metallic and OT is not well suited but I think it should not happen in a protonated water system (I would expect finding the LUMO as a lone state somewhere in the middle of the band gap, but not this). - Even when it converges (which I managed to do in toy systems but not on my system of interest), this only works for getting the eigenvalues which can be done either requesting the NLUMO in the &PDOS or in the &MO_CUBES sections, but not the eigenvectors even if I try to do the trick of asking for MO_INDEX_RANGE 1 [nhomo+nlumo] in the &MO section. 2) converge the wfn with diagonalization in any flavor (standard, davidson, lanczos or filter_matrix) requesting ADDED_MOS. Here the problem is that the diagonalization is a complete pain and I am struggling a lot to get it converged, which I did not manage yet. I am trying to do the usual tricks (playing with the ALPHA in &MIXING, etc), but still I have not managed to converge it. I tried doing the trick of computing the wfn with OT and then use that wfn as guess in a run with diagonalization with ADDED_MOS, but in that case the coefficients seem to be rescaled or ignored (since there are less MOS in the restart wfn than expected) and I don't get any improvement. Maybe somebody could give me some tips for improving the diagonalization in charged systems (some combination of mixing methods, parameters, etc.) or some workaround to make it work with OT? Thanks again! D. El miércoles, 9 de mayo de 2018, 22:21:37 (UTC+2), Matt W escribió:<o:p></o:p> <div> Dear Daniel,<o:p></o:p> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> the Gaussian basis set is not orthonormal, so the overlap matrix is required to provide a metric that converts to an orthonormal basis. Due to symmetry the pz orbital is orthogonal to the others in your example, so in that case every thing is easy.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> In general, the relation is C^T S C = I, where C is the matrix of MO coefficients, S is the overlap matrix and I is the identity matrix. You can print of the S matrix and check this. It is somewhere in the AO_MATRICES section of DFT % PRINT.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> See, for instance, Szabo and Ostlund, Modern Quantum Chemistry, Introduction to Advanced Electronic Structure Theory - exercise 3.10 in my version.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Matt On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 8:20:13 PM UTC+1, Dan_M wrote:<o:p></o:p> <div> Dear all, After requesting the printing out of the MO coefficients, I have observed that the coefficients do not seem to be normalized. For instance, here are the MOs for 1 water molecule with a SZV basis (after a single point calculation on the "real" geometry, with diagonalization algorithm standard): MO EIGENVALUES, MO OCCUPATION NUMBERS, AND SPHERICAL MO EIGENVECTORS 1 2 3 4 -0.952554 -0.496599 -0.304175 -0.250528 2.000000 2.000000 2.000000 2.000000 1 1 O 2s 0.807460 -0.000000 0.542312 0.000000 2 1 O 3py -0.246487 -0.000000 0.810927 0.000000 3 1 O 3pz -0.000000 0.000000 -0.000000 1.000000 4 1 O 3px 0.000000 -0.661844 -0.000000 -0.000000 5 2 H 1s 0.125677 -0.390214 -0.194623 -0.000000 6 3 H 1s 0.125677 0.390214 -0.194623 -0.000000 So only the MO 4 is trivially normalized, but the others are not. Am I missing something (some correction factor, etc) or is this just the way it is? Thanks and best Daniel<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </div> </div> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cp2k" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cp2k+u...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to cp...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at <a href="https://groups.google.com/group/cp2k" target="_blank"> https://groups.google.com/group/cp2k</a>. For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout" target="_blank"> https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </div> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cp2k" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cp2k+u...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to cp...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at <a href="https://groups.google.com/group/cp2k" target="_blank"> https://groups.google.com/group/cp2k</a>. For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout" target="_blank"> https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </div> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cp2k" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cp2k+u...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to cp...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at <a href="https://groups.google.com/group/cp2k" target="_blank"> https://groups.google.com/group/cp2k</a>. For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout" target="_blank"> https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cp2k" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:cp2k+unsu...@googlegroups.com">cp2k+unsu...@googlegroups.com</a>. To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:cp...@googlegroups.com">cp...@googlegroups.com</a>. Visit this group at <a href="https://groups.google.com/group/cp2k">https://groups.google.com/group/cp2k</a>. For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<o:p></o:p> </div> </body> </html>