<div dir="ltr">Dear Nt,<div><br></div><div>1) it would be helpful to see your script;</div><div>2) please double check the units;</div><div>3) have you tried the very script from the excercise (not only some formulae from it)?</div><div><br></div><div>Yours,</div><div><br></div><div>Vladimir<br><br>среда, 20 ноября 2019 г., 19:07:19 UTC+1 пользователь Nt написал:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Dear Vladimir:<div><br></div><div>Thank you for asking and for your interest. Both formulae, which are similar to each other (based on the "fluctuation" method), give me answers of <1. Both formulae are of the form, static dielectric constant = 1 + x and my problem is that the x term is far too small.</div><div><br></div><div>I have searched through the literature quite extensively and don't see any alternatives to the formula I provided here or the one that the CP2K tutorial uses. I just can't figure out why my result is so far off what it should be. My water density is consistent with experiments and I have checked and rechecked my units. I'm wondering if there is something fundamental I don't understand about the CP2K dipole moments output.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 09:46, Vladimir Rybkin <<a href="javascript:" target="_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto="JEcVO9pMBgAJ" rel="nofollow" onmousedown="this.href='javascript:';return true;" onclick="this.href='javascript:';return true;">ry...@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Dear Nt, <div><br></div><div>you write:</div><div><br></div><div><div>When I multiplied the result with the total dipole moment I calculated above, the answer was far from 80. I used another version of the equation that is more common in published literature without the epsilon_0 term in the denominator and without the "e" terms. It gives me an answer much less than 1.<br></div><div><br></div></div><div>So, if I understand correctly, you used to formulas: one from the script and another one, that you find more proper. The latter gives less than 1. What is the number from the first one? </div><div><br></div><div>Yours,</div><div><br></div><div>Vladimir</div><div><br><br>вторник, 19 ноября 2019 г., 16:51:52 UTC+1 пользователь Nt написал:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Dear Vladimir:<div><br></div><div>Thank you very much indeed for your reply. I haven't managed to find anyone who has performed dielectric constant calculations in CP2K so far and my results have been so strange (always ~1 for water no matter which T I use in my simulations) that I have been wondering if maybe CP2K is not appropriate for this purpose for some reason or whether there's a problem with the way I outputted my dipole moments files. I just can't figure out what is going wrong. </div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for your suggestion; I did write a script myself, but keep getting values of ~1 (instead of ~80) at 20 C. I have tried several versions of the fluctuation expression I provided in my initial post, I have checked my units repeatedly, and nothing helps.</div><div><br></div><div>For the past few days I have been trying to understand the tutorial script you referred to in case there's a hint there as to why my own script doesn't generate reasonable results. However, there are a few points in the tutorial script that I don't understand, such as what the "weights" parameter is and where it comes from (it looks like the dipole moment files generated by CP2K and used in the tutorial script must have been formatted differently to current-day moment files so that makes it tough to figure out what is going on--i.e., exactly which data the tutorial script is using). It's also not possible to tell exactly what M_vec is made up of. Thank you very much for the link to the paper, but unfortunately, it doesn't provide the kind of nitty gritty I need to follow the example in the tutorial and my own calculations.</div><div><br></div><div>I have been hoping that someone here who has run these calculations successfully might see my post and give me some hints or maybe even let me know if CP2K is not the method to use for this. Thanks a lot anyway.</div></div> </blockquote></div></div> <p></p> -- <br> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cp2k" group.<br> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="javascript:" target="_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto="JEcVO9pMBgAJ" rel="nofollow" onmousedown="this.href='javascript:';return true;" onclick="this.href='javascript:';return true;">cp...@googlegroups.<wbr>com</a>.<br> To view this discussion on the web visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cp2k/abab9c1d-6d8a-45b0-9165-6b2c30be811b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" onmousedown="this.href='https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cp2k/abab9c1d-6d8a-45b0-9165-6b2c30be811b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium\x3demail\x26utm_source\x3dfooter';return true;" onclick="this.href='https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cp2k/abab9c1d-6d8a-45b0-9165-6b2c30be811b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium\x3demail\x26utm_source\x3dfooter';return true;">https://groups.google.com/d/<wbr>msgid/cp2k/abab9c1d-6d8a-45b0-<wbr>9165-6b2c30be811b%<wbr>40googlegroups.com</a>.<br> </blockquote></div></div> </blockquote></div></div>