Any computational chemists have any advice?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gravenewworld
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computational
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around computational chemistry techniques, specifically focusing on QST2 calculations for transition state identification and the use of the B3LYP/6-31++G** basis set for optimizing lithium-containing organic compounds. Participants explore challenges in optimizing geometries and the computational demands of different methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes performing a QST2 calculation that identifies a transition state with one imaginary frequency but faces issues with optimizing structures to the left and right of the transition state, questioning alternatives to QST2.
  • Another participant mentions finding a journal article discussing the B3LYP/6-31++G** basis set for lithium-containing organic compounds and inquires about others' experiences with this basis set and its computational demands.
  • Some participants suggest that the B3LYP/6-31++G** basis set is standard in computational chemistry but will require more computational resources and time compared to standard DFT calculations.
  • Concerns are raised about the computational time required for the B3LYP/6-31++G** calculations, especially when using older hardware, with one participant estimating a week for completion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the B3LYP/6-31++G** basis set is more computationally intensive than standard DFT calculations. However, there is no consensus on the best approach to optimize geometries around the transition state or on the specific computational time required for different setups.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the optimization of geometries related to transition states and the specific computational demands of various methods. The discussion reflects limitations in hardware capabilities and the potential variability in computational time based on different setups.

Who May Find This Useful

Computational chemists, researchers working on transition state theory, and those interested in the computational aspects of lithium-containing organic compounds may find this discussion relevant.

gravenewworld
Messages
1,129
Reaction score
27
I am trying to do a QST2 calculation on two geometry optimized structures that I obtained by doing DFT calcs. The QST2 calc runs fine and finds 1 imaginary frequency resulting in a transition state that appears reasonable. However, when I pick points to the "left" and "right" of the transition state structure and optimize them back down, I find that the 1 optimized strucutre matches exactly to the input strucuture I originally put in, even in total energy. The structure to the "left" of the transition state optimizes back down but results in a structure that is similar to the original input structure but is off by almost 6kcal/mol in energy to my original input structure. Are there any alternatives to the QST2 calc that can be done in order to find transition states between 2 optimized geometries? Are there any tricks I can do in order to get the geometry to the "left" of the transition state to optimize back down to my original input structure (energy wise)? BTW I am currently using gaussian to do the calcs.

-Thanks, GNW.
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
I also just found a journal article by a guy from Yale who uses the B3LYP/6-31++G** basis set for calculations involving lithium containing organic compounds. Is anyone familiar with using this basis set and what kind of results did you get? Will this take much longer than a DFT calc (or any idea of how much cpu power this will chew up)? The reaction I am trying to optimize is the is a Biphenylene ring, which when introduced to Li2, opens up to give biphenyl. One structure I have tried to optimize is the Biphenylene system with 2 Lithiums exactly over the center the biphenylene, with 1 lithium on top and the other on the bottom.
 
I think that basis set is pretty standard for computational chemistry. It's going to be a lot more intensive than a standard DFT calculation. The results will be better, but it's going to take longer and require more CPU power.
 
Great, my worst suspicions came true. The computer I am using is a 10 year old Mac. The DFT calcs took several days, the 6-31g++** calcs will probably take a week .
 
Yeah, sorry to break the news, but that's probably about right.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K