Dissociation energy for the NO molecule

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the search for post-Hartree-Fock calculation benchmarks for the dissociation energy and equilibrium energy of the NO molecule, specifically using the cc-pVTZ basis set. A user shared their results from a geometry optimization using Q-Chem at the CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ level, reporting a final energy of -129.70273042654063. The calculation was noted to be quick, taking only seconds on a single core, which is typical for small systems like NO due to the scaling issues associated with CCSD(T). The conversation highlights the varying performance of different computational programs with different methods and basis sets, emphasizing the importance of selecting software that efficiently handles specific tasks, such as Molpro and CFour for coupled cluster calculations. Additionally, there is curiosity about the efficiency of CCSDT compared to CCSD(T), with a reference to benchmarks that showed discrepancies with the user's results.
Morberticus
Messages
82
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Does anyone know where I can find post-hartree-fock calculation benchmarks for dissociation energy of the NO molecule. Or even just the equilibrium energy of the NO molecule?

I am looking for cc-pVTZ basis set results but I can only seem to find augmented basis set results.

Thanks.
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
I did a geometry optimisation in qchem at CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ level. Hope this helps.
Z-matrix Print:
$molecule
0,2
1 N
2 O 1 1.154418
$end
Final energy is -129.70273042654063
 
TAMEPJLAH said:
I did a geometry optimisation in qchem at CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ level. Hope this helps.
Z-matrix Print:
$molecule
0,2
1 N
2 O 1 1.154418
$end
Final energy is -129.70273042654063

That was fast! Thanks. How long did this calculation take? How many cores? It seems much faster than the method I was trying.
 
Morberticus said:
That was fast! Thanks. How long did this calculation take? How many cores? It seems much faster than the method I was trying.
This calculation should be a matter of seconds on a single core.

Note the horrific scaling of CCSD(T) (7th order). That means it gets very slow quickly for larger systems. That also means that it is very fast for small systems, like NO.

As a side note: The performance of different programs differs widely for different methods and basis sets. For example, many programs cannot deal well with generally contracted basis sets (like cc-pVnZ), and then it can easily happen that one program is spending two days calculating integrals where another program does the same job in five minutes...
So you generally want to use a program which is known to handle a certain kind of task well (e.g., Molpro is a good choice for coupled cluster calculations).
 
I think this computer has 4 cores, but as cgk said this calculation is fast for small systems. I also recommend cfour for cupled cluster calculations, its free of charge for non-commercial users :) http://www.cfour.de/
 
Interesting. Would either of you know how efficient a CCSDT, as opposed to CCSD(T) calculation would be? I ask because I have found a set of benchmarks, but I think they are using slightly tweaked basis sets (They optimise the polarisation exponent).

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000JChPh.113..485F

Their result is half an eV off mine, while the result you reported is almost identical to mine (I used a CI based method).
 
I want to test a humidity sensor with one or more saturated salt solutions. The table salt that I have on hand contains one of two anticaking agents, calcium silicate or sodium aluminosilicate. Will the presence of either of these additives (or iodine for that matter) significantly affect the equilibrium humidity? I searched and all the how-to-do-it guides did not address this question. One research paper I found reported that at 1.5% w/w calcium silicate increased the deliquescent point by...
Back
Top