From chemistry-request {*at*} ccl.net Mon Jun 6 11:04:38 2005 Received: from poincare.ciril.fr (medecine.uhp-nancy.fr [194.214.217.19]) by server.ccl.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j56F4RIW009086 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 11:04:30 -0400 Received: from ptxavier ([193.50.239.125]) by poincare.ciril.fr (8.13.4/8.13.4/Guy-30-12-2004) with SMTP id j56F49bH014559; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:04:10 +0200 (METDST) From: "Xavier ASSFELD" To: "Karla Tersago" , Subject: RE: conflict between energy and imaginary frequency Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:04:05 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C56AB9.BEC89E80" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <42A418B4.7070404 -()- ua.ac.be> Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.132 () HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TITLE_EMPTY X-Scanned-By: poincare.ciril.fr on 194.214.217.19 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO,HTML_40_50, HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TITLE_EMPTY autolearn=no version=3.0.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on server.ccl.net This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C56AB9.BEC89E80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear, there are two possible explainations. The first one, as you mentioned is the numerical noise due to the grid of integration. The cure is to use a "better" grid! Is it possible? The second possibility is intramolecular BSSE. Look at the work of Franck Jensen Chem. Phys. Lett. 261 (1996) 633. Yours. ...Xav Pr. Xavier Assfeld Xavier.Assfeld -()- cbt.uhp-nancy.fr Chimie et Biochimie theoriques T: (33) 3 83 68 43 82 Faculte des Sciences F: (33) 3 83 68 43 71 54506 Vandoeuvre, France http://www.lctn.uhp-nancy.fr -----Message d'origine----- De : Computational Chemistry List [mailto:chemistry-request -()- ccl.net]De la part de Karla Tersago Envoye : lundi 6 juin 2005 11:35 A : chemistry -()- ccl.net Objet : CCL:conflict between energy and imaginary frequency Dear CCL'ers, When I perform a geometry optimization, with frequency calculation of a certain molecule with Gaussian03, I have the following problem: Cs symmetry: imaginary frequency of -20 cm-1, so this is transition state structure. C1 symmetry: no imaginary frequencies, so it is a minimum on the potential energy surface. It's lowest frequency is 27 cm-1. I checked the normal modes of both structures and the imaginary frequency of the Cs form and the lowest frequency of the C1 form correspond to the same normal mode. The problem is that energy of the optimized structured shows that the Cs form has a lower energy (it is stabilized by 0.02 kcal/mol) than the C1 form. How can it be that a transition state has a lower energy than a minimum? The calculations were done with B3LYP/6-311+G* opt=verytight int=ultrafine freq As the data conflict, I thought it might be a problem with some thresholds, so I tried to set better thresholds with: Iop(3/27=15) and Iop(3/29=15) I also tried iop(3/32=x) in combination with the above set options, but for x=3,4,5 the scf did not converged (even not if I put MaxCycle on 500). Does anybody have any suggestions on how I can solve this? Best regards, Karla -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Karla Tersago Structural Chemistry Group, Department of Chemistry University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Antwerp, Belgium E-mail: karla.tersago -()- ua.ac.be /Phone:+32(03)8202366/Fax:+32(03)8202310 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C56AB9.BEC89E80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear,
 
there=20 are two possible explainations. The first one, as you mentioned is the = numerical=20 noise due to the grid of integration. The cure is to use a "better" = grid! Is it=20 possible?
The=20 second possibility is intramolecular BSSE. Look at the work = of Franck=20 Jensen Chem. Phys. Lett. 261 (1996) 633.
Yours.

       =20        =20                ...Xav

Pr. Xavier=20 Assfeld           =  =20 Xavier.Assfeld -()- cbt.uhp-nancy.fr
Chimie et Biochimie théoriques = T: (33) 3 83=20 68 43 82
Faculté des=20 Sciences           F: = (33) 3=20 83 68 43 71
54506 Vandoeuvre, = France       http://www.lctn.uhp-nancy.fr

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Computational = Chemistry=20 List [mailto:chemistry-request -()- ccl.net]De la part de Karla=20 Tersago
Envoyé : lundi 6 juin 2005 = 11:35
À :=20 chemistry -()- ccl.net
Objet : CCL:conflict between energy = and=20 imaginary frequency

Dear CCL’ers,

When I perform a geometry = optimization, with=20 frequency calculation of a certain molecule with Gaussian03, I have = the=20 following problem:
Cs symmetry: imaginary frequency of = -20=20 cm-1, so this is transition state structure.
C1 = symmetry: no=20 imaginary frequencies, so it is a minimum on the potential energy = surface.=20 It’s lowest frequency is 27 cm-1.
I checked the = normal modes of=20 both structures and the imaginary frequency of the Cs form and the = lowest=20 frequency of the C1 form correspond to the same normal mode.
The = problem is=20 that energy of the optimized structured shows that the Cs form has a = lower=20 energy (it is stabilized by 0.02 kcal/mol) than the C1=20 form. 

How can it be that a transition state has a lower = energy=20 than a minimum? 

The calculations were done with=20 B3LYP/6-311+G*
opt=3Dverytight int=3Dultrafine = freq 

As the data conflict, I thought it might be a = problem with=20 some thresholds, so I tried to set better thresholds = with:
Iop(3/27=3D15) and=20 Iop(3/29=3D15) 

I also tried iop(3/32=3Dx) in combination with = the above set=20 options, but for x=3D3,4,5 the scf did not converged (even not if I = put MaxCycle=20 on 500). 

Does anybody have any suggestions on how I can = solve=20 this? 

Best regards,

Karla

--=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
Karla Tersago
Structural Chemistry Group, Department of Chemistry
University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Antwerp, Belgium
E-mail: karla.tersago -()- ua.ac.be =
/Phone:+32(03)8202366/Fax:+32(03)8202310=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C56AB9.BEC89E80--