Closed MartinBeseda closed 5 years ago
Dear Martin,
This feature is only working for analytical representations. It has not being implemented for the grid-type functions, sorry. It is on my todo list.
Cheers, Sergey
Dear Sergey,
so, if I understand you well, you don't support piecewise-defined functions currently, do you? I was thinking about interpolating the dataset manually and providing the resulting function to DUO.
Cheers, Martin
We do support piecewise-defined functions all right, just not for this feature of estimating the spectroscopic constants. The latter have never being a priority as the main purpose of Duo is a direct solution of the Schroedinger equation. Besides, spectroscopic constants, at least of the higher order, are heavily empirical. There is no much sense, from my experience, deriving them from the potential energy curves.
Cheers, Sergey
Well, I see the sense of deriving them from PESs in two things: 1) Checking the PES comparing the constants with already known experients 2) Providing them to experimentalists, if they have no previous results.
And just off-topic question - which software did you use for the diatomic spectroscopic constants computations then?
Yes, I am aware of these applications. (1) Personally I prefer comparing energies not constants. (2) I do see sometimes (not very often) experimentalists trying to use ab initio spectroscopic constants, but not with much success.
RE: spectroscopic constants, I don't compute them at all. Spectroscopic constants only make sense as part of the perturbative/empirical methodology based on the effective rotational Hamiltonians for computing energies or line positions. We tend to use the variational methodology, based on the PECs (spin-orbit curves etc) directly. If I need to do a effective rotational Hamoltonian treatment I use PGOPHER.
Ok, I understand. Still, I'd like to compute them at least for this one case, but I understand, that it isn't your priority. Thank you for the prompt responses!
Martin
I will surely introduce this feature at some point. As a quick fix I can suggest to represent your potential energy curve as, e.g. a Morse potential, or even as a polynomial, or something like this
poten 1
name "X2Sigmau+"
symmetry u +
lambda 1
mult 2
type EMO
values
V0 0.00000000000000E+00
RE 1.08435981870765E+00
DE 4.44521643363054E+04
RREF -1.00000000000000E+00
PL 8.00000000000000E+00
PR 8.00000000000000E+00
NL 1.00000000000000E+00
NR 3.00000000000000E+00
B0 3.53434543259561E+00 fit
B1 3.41588567189263E-01 fit
B2 2.36501323107290E+00 fit
B3 -3.81206035003490E+00 fit
end
The spectroscopic constants only depend on the firs few derivatives, i.e. it is only the very bottom of the potential you need to fit accurately. However, looking at you potential, you do want to have more points around the equilibrium (below ~5000 cm-1) in order to have spectroscopic constants accurate. Otherwise the uncertainly will be too high. You can try using Duo to fit to ab initio data, see example below, but it will only work with a better coverage around equilibrium and accurate (smooth) ab initio data. A side note, you should use accurate masses or switch to "atoms" (see below).
Cheers, Sergey
(N2+ 2SigmaU+)
atoms N N
nstates 1
jrot -2 2
symmetry C2v
grid npoints 100 range 0.85 5 type 0 end
vibrationalbasis vmax 1 end
eigensolver nroots 50 end
poten 1
name "X2Sigmau+"
symmetry u +
lambda 1
mult 2
type EMO
values
V0 0.00000000000000E+00
RE 1.08435981870765E+00
DE 4.44521643363054E+04
RREF -1.00000000000000E+00
PL 8.00000000000000E+00
PR 8.00000000000000E+00
NL 1.00000000000000E+00
NR 3.00000000000000E+00
B0 3.53434543259561E+00 fit
B1 3.41588567189263E-01 fit
B2 2.36501323107290E+00 fit
B3 -3.81206035003490E+00 fit
end
DO_NOT_SHIFT_PECS
abinitio potential 1 name "2 SigmaU+" symmetry u + lambda 1 mult 2 spin 0.5 type grid interpolationtype Cubicsplines units angstrom eH weighting ps1997 0.005 50000.0 values 0.8 0.4663431999999972 0.85 0.2716072000000054 0.9 0.14446329999999818 0.95 0.06631509999999707 1 0.023365799999993442 1.05 0 1.1 -0.00121289999999874 1.15 0.008618799999993598 1.2 0.0252145999999982 1.25 0.04443120000000533 1.3 0.06253599999999437 1.35 0.0777470999999963 1.4 0.08978539999999668 1.45 0.099500699999993 1.5 0.1078013999999996 1.55 0.11524179999999262 1.6 0.12209389999999587 1.65 0.1284830000000028 1.7 0.13446980000000508 1.75 0.14007789999999432 1.8 0.14535119999999324 1.85 0.1503034999999926 1.9 0.15495169999999803 1.95 0.1593098000000026 2 0.16338980000000447 2.05 0.16720200000000318 2.1 0.17075570000000084 2.15 0.17405920000000208 2.2 0.1771202000000045 2.25 0.1799457999999987 2.3 0.18254299999999546 2.35 0.18491869999999722 2.4 0.18708049999999332 2.45 0.1890367000000026 2.5 0.19079659999999876 2.55 0.19237090000000023 2.6 0.1937710999999922 2.65 0.1950096000000059 2.7 0.1960983999999968 2.75 0.1970500000000044 2.8 0.19787619999999606 2.85 0.198588799999996 2.9 0.1991991000000013 2.95 0.19971769999999367 3 0.20015519999999754 3.05 0.20054960000000221 3.1 0.20084439999999404 3.15 0.2010855000000049 3.2 0.20128060000000403 3.25 0.20143659999999386 3.3 0.2015597999999983 3.35 0.20165559999999516 3.4 0.20172870000000387 3.45 0.20178300000000604 3.5 0.20182219999999518 3.55 0.20184899999999573 3.6 0.20186619999999778 3.65 0.20167109999999866 3.7 0.20167419999999936 3.75 0.20167290000000548 3.8 0.20166840000000263 3.85 0.2016617000000025 3.9 0.20165350000000615 3.95 0.20164450000000045 4 0.20163519999999835 4.05 0.20162589999999625 4.1 0.20161690000000476 4.15 0.20160850000000607 4.2 0.20160079999999425 4.25 0.20159400000000005 4.3 0.201588000000001 4.35 0.2015829999999994 4.4 0.20157890000000123 4.45 0.20157580000000053 4.55 0.20157229999999515 4.6 0.20157179999999641 4.65 0.20157209999999282 4.7 0.2015731000000045 4.75 0.20157480000000305 4.8 0.20157720000000268 4.85 0.20157999999999276 4.9 0.20158340000000408 4.95 0.2015872999999999 5 0.20159160000000043 30 0.20215919999999699 end
FITTING JLIST 0 itmax 20 fit_factor 1e-12 robust 0.0 output ESigma_Elander energies (J parity NN energy ) (e-state v ilambda isigma omega weight) 0 + 1 0.00 1 0 1 0 0 1.0 end
Hello, I'm a completely new user of Duo and I'm puzzled by one thing.
I wanted to compute energy levels and spectroscopic constants of N2+ in SigmaU+ symmetry.
The problem is, I'm not getting
N.A.
symbol instead of the desired spectroscopic symols.I suppose, that it's caused by a detection of multiple minima in my data. The problem is, there should be just one real minima, as can be seen in the plot.
Could you, please, tell me, what am I doing wrong in the input?
Complete output file