-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
schema for vibrational analysis #50
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
} | ||
}, | ||
"Xtp0": { | ||
"description": "(nvib, ) for each vibration, turnin point v=0 [a0]; +/0 for real/imaginary modes.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
turnin -> turning
My questions are:
For reference, from #32, given the Q-Chem input
the Jmol QCJSON output is ["QCJSON 0-0-0.Jmol_14.29.17__2018-06-15_14:15",
{
"__jmol_created":"Thu Aug 30 14:36:03 EDT 2018",
"__jmol_source":"/home/eric/Dropbox/research/cclib/calculations/frequencies/hydrogen_fluoride/qchem.out"
},
{
"__jmol_block":"Job 1",
"metadata":{
"__jmol_info":{
"modelLoadNote":"E(Total) = -98.57284734\n4474.34 cm^-1\n",
"calculationType":"STO-3G"
}
},
"steps":[
{
"__jmol_block":"Model 1",
"topology":{
"atoms":{
"coords_units":["angstroms",1.8897261254578281],
"coords":[
0.00000E+0, 0.00000E+0, -8.59957E-1,
0.00000E+0, 0.00000E+0, 9.55508E-2
],
"symbol":["_RLE_",1,"H",1,"F"],
"atom_number":["_RLE_",1,1,1,9]
}
},
"metadata":{
"__jmol_info":{
"name":"E(Total) = -98.57284734",
"modelNumberDotted":"1.1",
"modelNumber":1,
"modelFileNumber":1000001,
"modelName":"E(Total) = -98.57284734",
"initialAtomCount":2,
"Energy":-98.572845,
"modelProperties":{
"PATH":"Job 1",
"Energy":"-98.572845",
".PATH":"Job 1"
},
"initialBondCount":0,
"EnergyString":"-98.57284734",
"modelIndex":0,
"fileType":"qchem"
}
}
}
,
{
"__jmol_block":"Model 2",
"topology":{
"atoms":{
"coords_units":["angstroms",1.8897261254578281],
"coords":[
0.00000E+0, 0.00000E+0, -8.59957E-1,
0.00000E+0, 0.00000E+0, 9.55508E-2
],
"symbol":["_RLE_",1,"H",1,"F"],
"atom_number":["_RLE_",1,1,1,9]
}
},
"vibrations":[
{
"__jmol_block":"Vibration 1",
"frequency":{"value":4474.34,"units":["cm^-1",4.55633590401805E-6]},
"vectors":[
0.00000E+0, 0.00000E+0, 9.99000E-1,
0.00000E+0, 0.00000E+0, -5.30000E-2
]
}
],
"metadata":{
"__jmol_info":{
"name":"4474.34 cm^-1",
"modelNumberDotted":"1.2",
"modelNumber":2,
"modelFileNumber":1000002,
"modelName":"4474.34 cm^-1",
"initialAtomCount":2,
"modelProperties":{
"PATH":"Job 1:FrequenciesFrequencies",
"FreqValue":"4474.34",
"Mode":"1",
"Frequency":"4474.34 cm^-1",
".PATH":"Job 1:FrequenciesFrequencies"
},
"initialBondCount":0,
"vibrationalMode":1,
"modelIndex":1,
"fileType":"qchem"
}
}
}
]
}
] where the normal mode vectors are just whatever is parsed from the output file. |
The other issue is I don't think there is a middle ground on units. Either we say unequivocally we are atomic units or we need to implement a full unit spec similar to above. I still think atomic units are safer and simpler for quantum chemistry (pretty much the only CMS area where this applies), but it is controversial. |
I'm going to have to run soon. I agree the units issue is particularly messed up in vib-land. problem is no one recognizes au in this space. even frequency is this and this. question is really for the viz-ppl --- do we prepare stuff that's ready to display or stick with basic results and minimal value added. Also pursuant to Eric's comments, I think the thing to do is actually both. Prepare the basics (plain un-mass-wtd Hessian) and that becomes the basic json transaction but also have an interpreted area with the symm, force constants, etc. that they want. similar to EFP (where jmol can't be expected to interpret basic EFP hints) |
Even if atomic units are the default or the only option, wouldn't it still be good to specify them? |
@langner Absolutely. |
I should add that since original posting
|
Description
propose data structures for conveying a harmonic vibrational analysis
nvib
. in practice could bendof
for full Hessian,nvib
for only vibrations (rotations/translations discarded or never computed),?
for partial solutions (e.g., A2 only)Status