[Pw_forum] Pw_forum Digest, Vol 95, Issue 14

Yusuf Zuntu yzunt at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 15 15:03:50 CEST 2015


Re: Pw_forum Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11 ( total magnetization and absolute magnetization quenched)

Dear Prof Paolo,

Thank you for your swift response. Although I do not completely capture your response " they use different pseudopotentials and k-points" but am optimistic to learn more as to the reason for this strange change. In my relax calculation, the magnetic moment agrees well with the reported values and using QE pseudopotential with lesser number of k-points mesh, unfortunately, magnetic moment completely quenched in scf calculation and using the same QE pseudopotential at high k-points mesh. I will be happy to know the reason for the change with regards to their pseudo "http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.197207" (check here in) and what to modify to be able to repeat the same calculations: find below the input files for relax and scf calculations used
RELAX CALCULATION

&control
calculation = 'relax' ,
  title      = 'C4N3'
    prefix='pbe1x1C4N3',
 restart_mode = 'from_scratch' ,
 outdir = '/home/zuntu/yusuf/espresso-5.1.1/bin'
    pseudo_dir='/home/zuntu/yusuf/espresso-5.1.1/pseudo/upf_files'
    tstress = .true. ,
    tprnfor = .true. ,
    
 /
 &system       
    ibrav=4, celldm(1)= 9.14623, celldm(3)= 3.22190083 
    nat= 7, ntyp= 2,
    ecutwfc =40.0, ecutrho = 270, tot_charge = 0.00,
     occupations = 'smearing' ,
     degauss = 0.01 ,
     smearing = 'mp' ,
  nspin = 2 ,
   starting_magnetization(1) = 0.3,
 /
 &ELECTRONS
                    conv_thr = 1.D-6 ,
                 mixing_beta = 0.7D0 ,
/
 &IONS
                ion_dynamics = 'bfgs' ,
           pot_extrapolation = 'second_order' ,
           wfc_extrapolation = 'second_order' ,
 /
ATOMIC_SPECIES
 C  12.0107 C.pbe-n-kjpaw_psl.0.1.UPF
 N  14.0067 N.pbe-n-kjpaw_psl.0.1.UPF
ATOMIC_POSITIONS angstrom
 C 0.0 0.0 2.0
 C 1.21 0.64 2.0000  
 N 2.42 0.00 2.00  
 C 3.63 0.674 2.00000  
 N 3.63 2.022 2.0000  
 C 2.42 2.68 2.00
 N 1.21 2.022 2.0
K_POINTS automatic
   4 4 1 1 1 1

SCF CALCULATION

&control
calculation = 'scf' ,
  title      = 'C4N3'
    prefix='pbe1x1C4N3',
 restart_mode = 'from_scratch' ,
 outdir = '/home/zuntu/yusuf/espresso-5.1.1/bin'
    pseudo_dir='/home/zuntu/yusuf/espresso-5.1.1/pseudo/upf_files'
     verbosity='high'
    
 /
 &system       
    ibrav=4, celldm(1)= 9.14623, celldm(3)= 3.22190083 
    nat= 7, ntyp= 2,
    ecutwfc =40.0, ecutrho = 270, tot_charge = 0.00,
     occupations = 'smearing' ,
     degauss = 0.01 ,
     smearing = 'mp' ,
     nspin = 2 ,
   starting_magnetization(1) = 0.6,
 /
 &ELECTRONS
                    conv_thr = 1.D-6 ,
                 mixing_beta = 0.7D0 ,
/
ATOMIC_SPECIES
 C  12.0107 C.pz-n-kjpaw_psl.0.1.UPF
 N  14.0067 N.pz-n-kjpaw_psl.0.1.UPF
ATOMIC_POSITIONS (angstrom)
C        0.000169362  -0.049027525   2.000001268
C        1.246828369   0.669477960   2.000001487
N        2.420687939   0.008258827   1.999996634
C        3.593997961   0.670979132   2.000002839
N        3.579281825   2.018019377   1.999998410
C        2.419168269   2.703396539   2.000003594
N        1.259866274   2.016895690   1.999995769
K_POINTS automatic
 12 12 1 1 1 1 
  
Thank you

Yusuf Zuntu
Postgraduate Student
Universiti Sains Malaysia
---------------e----------------------------
On Mon, 6/15/15, pw_forum-request at pwscf.org <pw_forum-request at pwscf.org> wrote:

 Subject: Pw_forum Digest, Vol 95, Issue 14
 To: pw_forum at pwscf.org
 Date: Monday, June 15, 2015, 6:00 PM
 
 Send Pw_forum mailing list
 submissions to
     pw_forum at pwscf.org
 
 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
     http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
 to
     pw_forum-request at pwscf.org
 
 You can reach the person managing the list at
     pw_forum-owner at pwscf.org
 
 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
 specific
 than "Re: Contents of Pw_forum digest..."
 
 
 Today's Topics:
 
    1. Re: [*]  Re:  [qe-gpu]
 (Anubhav Kumar)
    2. Re: Pw_forum Digest, Vol 95, Issue 13
 (Umesh Roy)
    3. Re: Bug (or not) with epsil = .false.
 in PH (trunk version)
       (Andrea Dal Corso)
    4. Re: Pw_forum Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11
 (Yusuf Zuntu)
    5. Re: Pw_forum Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11
 (Paolo Giannozzi)
 
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Message: 1
 Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:57:41 +0530
 From: "Anubhav Kumar" <kanubhav at iitk.ac.in>
 Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] [*]  Re:  [qe-gpu]
 To: "PWSCF Forum" <pw_forum at pwscf.org>
 Message-ID:
     <2447241701e01ab85061153de3e2d335.squirrel at webmail.iitk.ac.in>
 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
 
 Dear Filippo
 
 Thank you very much for your reply.I am new to parallel
 programming and
 cuda.So can you please explain in detail how to make changes
 suggested by
 you?
 
 > Dear Anubhav,
 >
 > run in parallel, 2 MPI and make sure
 CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES is set such
 >
 > MPI rank 0 -> GPU id 1 (K20)
 > MPI rank 1 -> GPU id 2 (K20)
 >
 > Those K20 GPU are active cooled cards, how many sockets
 this server (or
 > workstation?) have?
 >
 > F
 >
 
 
 
 ------------------------------
 
 Message: 2
 Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:10:55 +0530
 From: Umesh Roy <umesh24crp at gmail.com>
 Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] Pw_forum Digest, Vol 95, Issue 13
 To: pw_forum at pwscf.org
 Message-ID:
     <CAHj-Tq395Sp+Q1nw06w5r608y7XbO9PvcaBNKNBaxPDNhx2gUQ at mail.gmail.com>
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
 
 Dear Sir,
          Yes. I considered
 spin-orbit coupling and for that the dynamical
 matrices are written in xml format as mentioned in the
 program. Later the
 problem was solved by adding ".xml" in the dynamical matrix
 file of the
 input.
 
 Previous input for q2r.in was
 &input
 fildyn='au.dyn', filfrc='au888'
 
 which does not work.
 But as I add .xml in the name of fildyn then it works.
 &input
 fildyn='au.dyn.xml', filfrc='au888
 
  Anyway thank you for your reply.
 
   Regards
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *---------------------------------------------------------------------Umesh
 Chandra RoyResearch Scholar, School of Physical
 SciencesJawaharlal Nehru
 University, New Delhi-110067,*
 
 *India.*
 
 *Email:umesh24crp at gmail.com
 <Email%3Aumesh24crp at gmail.com>*
 *Mobile:+919868022722*
 
 On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 3:30 PM, <pw_forum-request at pwscf.org>
 wrote:
 
 > Send Pw_forum mailing list submissions to
 >         pw_forum at pwscf.org
 >
 > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
 visit
 >         http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
 > or, via email, send a message with subject or body
 'help' to
 >         pw_forum-request at pwscf.org
 >
 > You can reach the person managing the list at
 >         pw_forum-owner at pwscf.org
 >
 > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is
 more specific
 > than "Re: Contents of Pw_forum digest..."
 >
 >
 > Today's Topics:
 >
 >    1. [qe-gpu] (Anubhav Kumar)
 >    2. Re: [qe-gpu] (Filippo Spiga)
 >    3. Bug (or not) with epsil = .false. in PH
 (trunk version)
 >       (Samuel Ponc?)
 >    4. xml format for dynamical matrix (Umesh
 Roy)
 >    5. Re: xml format for dynamical matrix
 (Lorenzo Paulatto)
 >
 >
 >
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 >
 > Message: 1
 > Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:38:30 +0530
 > From: "Anubhav Kumar" <kanubhav at iitk.ac.in>
 > Subject: [Pw_forum] [qe-gpu]
 > To: pw_forum at pwscf.org
 > Message-ID:
 >         <a09d6ef04630522dbc9a233c339a7dcb.squirrel at webmail.iitk.ac.in>
 > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
 >
 > Dear QE users
 >
 > I have configured qe-gpu 14.10.0 with
 espresso-5.1.2.Parallel compilation
 > was successful, but when i run ./pw-gpu.x it gives the
 following output
 >
 > ***WARNING: unbalanced configuration (1 MPI per node, 3
 GPUs per node)
 >
 >     
 *******************************************************************
 >
 >        GPU-accelerated Quantum
 ESPRESSO (svn rev. unknown)
 >        (parallel: Y , MAGMA : N )
 >
 >     
 *******************************************************************
 >
 >
 >      Program PWSCF v.5.1.2 starts on
 13Jun2015 at 15:23:59
 >
 >      This program is part of the
 open-source Quantum ESPRESSO suite
 >      for quantum simulation of
 materials; please cite
 >          "P. Giannozzi et al.,
 J. Phys.:Condens. Matter 21 395502 (2009);
 >           URL http://www.quantum-espresso.org",
 >      in publications or presentations
 arising from this work. More details
 > at
 >      http://www.quantum-espresso.org/quote
 >
 >      Parallel version (MPI &
 OpenMP), running on      24 processor cores
 >      Number of MPI processes: 
            
    1
 >      Threads/MPI process:   
                 24
 >      Waiting for input...
 >
 >
 > However when i again run the same command, it gives
 >
 > ***WARNING: unbalanced configuration (1 MPI per node, 3
 GPUs per node)
 >
 > Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault -
 invalid memory
 > reference.
 >
 > Backtrace for this error:
 > #0  0x7FB5001B57D7
 > #1  0x7FB5001B5DDE
 > #2  0x7FB4FF4C4D3F
 > #3  0x7FB4F3391D40
 > #4  0x7FB4F33666C3
 > #5  0x7FB4F3364C80
 > #6  0x7FB4F33759EF
 > #7  0x7FB4F345CA1F
 > #8  0x7FB4F345CD2F
 > #9  0x7FB500B7DBCC
 > #10  0x7FB500B7094F
 > #11  0x7FB500B7CC56
 > #12  0x7FB500B81410
 > #13  0x7FB500B7507B
 > #14  0x7FB500B6179D
 > #15  0x7FB500B940A0
 > #16  0x7FB5009BA047
 > #17  0x8A4EA3 in phiGemmInit
 > #18  0x76F55E in initcudaenv_
 > #19  0x66AE90 in __mp_MOD_mp_start at mp.f90:184
 > #20  0x66E192 in __mp_world_MOD_mp_world_start at
 mp_world.f90:58
 > #21  0x66DCC0 in __mp_global_MOD_mp_startup at
 mp_global.f90:65
 > #22  0x4082A0 in pwscf at pwscf.f90:23
 > #23  0x7FB4FF4AFEC4
 > Segmentation fault
 >
 > Kindly help me out in solving the problem. My GPU
 details are
 >
 >
 +------------------------------------------------------+
 > | NVIDIA-SMI 346.46     Driver
 Version: 346.46         |
 >
 >
 |-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
 > | GPU  Name       
 Persistence-M| Bus-Id        Disp.A |
 Volatile Uncorr.
 > ECC |
 > | Fan  Temp  Perf  Pwr:Usage/Cap| 
        Memory-Usage |
 GPU-Util  Compute
 > M. |
 >
 >
 |===============================+======================+======================|
 > |   0  Tesla C2050   
      Off  | 0000:02:00.0 
     On |
 >  0 |
 > | 30%   62C   P12 
   N/A /  N/A |     87MiB
 /  2687MiB |      0%
 > Default |
 >
 >
 +-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
 > |   1  Tesla K20c   
       Off  | 0000:83:00.0 
    Off |
 >  0 |
 > | 42%   55C    P0   
 46W / 225W |   4578MiB /  4799MiB
 |      0%
 > Default |
 >
 >
 +-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
 > |   2  Tesla K20c   
       Off  | 0000:84:00.0 
    Off |
 >  0 |
 > | 34%   46C    P8   
 17W / 225W |     14MiB /  4799MiB
 |      0%
 > Default |
 >
 >
 +-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
 >
 >
 >
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 > | Processes:           
                
                
            GPU
 > Memory |
 > |  GPU       PID 
 Type  Process name         
                
      Usage
 >    |
 >
 >
 |=============================================================================|
 > |    1     27680 
   C   ./pw-gpu.x
 > 4563MiB |
 >
 >
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 >
 >
 > ------------------------------
 >
 > Message: 2
 > Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:51:25 +0100
 > From: Filippo Spiga <spiga.filippo at gmail.com>
 > Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] [qe-gpu]
 > To: PWSCF Forum <pw_forum at pwscf.org>
 > Message-ID: <560CDBF8-1CF6-4FD6-AD77-FECF1969B19B at gmail.com>
 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
 >
 > Dear Anubhav,
 >
 > run in parallel, 2 MPI and make sure
 CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES is set such
 >
 > MPI rank 0 -> GPU id 1 (K20)
 > MPI rank 1 -> GPU id 2 (K20)
 >
 > Those K20 GPU are active cooled cards, how many sockets
 this server (or
 > workstation?) have?
 >
 > F
 >
 > > On Jun 13, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Anubhav Kumar <kanubhav at iitk.ac.in>
 wrote:
 > >
 > > Dear QE users
 > >
 > > I have configured qe-gpu 14.10.0 with
 espresso-5.1.2.Parallel compilation
 > > was successful, but when i run ./pw-gpu.x it gives
 the following output
 > >
 > > ***WARNING: unbalanced configuration (1 MPI per
 node, 3 GPUs per node)
 > >
 > > 
    *******************************************************************
 > >
 > >       GPU-accelerated
 Quantum ESPRESSO (svn rev. unknown)
 > >       (parallel: Y ,
 MAGMA : N )
 > >
 > > 
    *******************************************************************
 > >
 > >
 > >     Program PWSCF v.5.1.2
 starts on 13Jun2015 at 15:23:59
 > >
 > >     This program is part of
 the open-source Quantum ESPRESSO suite
 > >     for quantum simulation of
 materials; please cite
 > >         "P.
 Giannozzi et al., J. Phys.:Condens. Matter 21 395502
 (2009);
 > >          URL http://www.quantum-espresso.org",
 > >     in publications or
 presentations arising from this work. More
 > details at
 > >     http://www.quantum-espresso.org/quote
 > >
 > >     Parallel version (MPI
 & OpenMP), running on      24 processor
 cores
 > >     Number of MPI
 processes:             
    1
 > >     Threads/MPI process: 
                
   24
 > >     Waiting for input...
 > >
 > >
 > > However when i again run the same command, it
 gives
 > >
 > > ***WARNING: unbalanced configuration (1 MPI per
 node, 3 GPUs per node)
 > >
 > > Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation
 fault - invalid memory
 > > reference.
 > >
 > > Backtrace for this error:
 > > #0  0x7FB5001B57D7
 > > #1  0x7FB5001B5DDE
 > > #2  0x7FB4FF4C4D3F
 > > #3  0x7FB4F3391D40
 > > #4  0x7FB4F33666C3
 > > #5  0x7FB4F3364C80
 > > #6  0x7FB4F33759EF
 > > #7  0x7FB4F345CA1F
 > > #8  0x7FB4F345CD2F
 > > #9  0x7FB500B7DBCC
 > > #10  0x7FB500B7094F
 > > #11  0x7FB500B7CC56
 > > #12  0x7FB500B81410
 > > #13  0x7FB500B7507B
 > > #14  0x7FB500B6179D
 > > #15  0x7FB500B940A0
 > > #16  0x7FB5009BA047
 > > #17  0x8A4EA3 in phiGemmInit
 > > #18  0x76F55E in initcudaenv_
 > > #19  0x66AE90 in __mp_MOD_mp_start at
 mp.f90:184
 > > #20  0x66E192 in
 __mp_world_MOD_mp_world_start at mp_world.f90:58
 > > #21  0x66DCC0 in __mp_global_MOD_mp_startup
 at mp_global.f90:65
 > > #22  0x4082A0 in pwscf at pwscf.f90:23
 > > #23  0x7FB4FF4AFEC4
 > > Segmentation fault
 > >
 > > Kindly help me out in solving the problem. My GPU
 details are
 > >
 > >
 +------------------------------------------------------+
 > > | NVIDIA-SMI 346.46     Driver
 Version: 346.46         |
 > >
 >
 |-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
 > > | GPU  Name       
 Persistence-M| Bus-Id        Disp.A |
 Volatile Uncorr.
 > > ECC |
 > > | Fan  Temp  Perf 
 Pwr:Usage/Cap|     
    Memory-Usage | GPU-Util
 > Compute
 > > M. |
 > >
 >
 |===============================+======================+======================|
 > > |   0  Tesla C2050 
        Off  |
 0000:02:00.0      On |
 > > 0 |
 > > |
 30%   62C   P12   
 N/A /  N/A |     87MiB / 
 2687MiB |      0%
 > > Default |
 > >
 >
 +-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
 > > |   1  Tesla K20c   
       Off  | 0000:83:00.0 
    Off |
 > > 0 |
 > > | 42%   55C    P0 
   46W / 225W |   4578MiB /  4799MiB
 |      0%
 > > Default |
 > >
 >
 +-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
 > > |   2  Tesla K20c   
       Off  | 0000:84:00.0 
    Off |
 > > 0 |
 > > | 34%   46C    P8 
   17W / 225W |     14MiB / 
 4799MiB |      0%
 > > Default |
 > >
 >
 +-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
 > >
 > >
 >
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 > > | Processes:         
                
                
              GPU
 > > Memory |
 > > |  GPU   
    PID  Type  Process name 
                
              Usage
 > >   |
 > >
 >
 |=============================================================================|
 > > |    1 
    27680   
 C   ./pw-gpu.x
 > > 4563MiB |
 > >
 >
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > Pw_forum mailing list
 > > Pw_forum at pwscf.org
 > > http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
 >
 > --
 > Mr. Filippo SPIGA, M.Sc.
 > http://fspiga.github.io ~ skype: filippo.spiga
 >
 > ?Nobody will drive us out of Cantor's paradise.? ~
 David Hilbert
 >
 > *****
 > Disclaimer: "Please note this message and any
 attachments are CONFIDENTIAL
 > and may be privileged or otherwise protected from
 disclosure. The contents
 > are not to be disclosed to anyone other than the
 addressee. Unauthorized
 > recipients are requested to preserve this
 confidentiality and to advise the
 > sender immediately of any error in transmission."
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > ------------------------------
 >
 > Message: 3
 > Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 16:38:36 +0100
 > From: Samuel Ponc? <samuel.pon at gmail.com>
 > Subject: [Pw_forum] Bug (or not) with epsil = .false.
 in PH (trunk
 >         version)
 > To: PWSCF Forum <pw_forum at pwscf.org>
 > Message-ID:
 >         <
 > CAESzT+7K5m6_bMcOxDeDUZu8utANY+mydgZVft+kQq6xg37W7g at mail.gmail.com>
 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
 >
 > Dear all,
 >
 > I found out that it was impossible de make a phonon
 calculation without
 > calculating the Born effective charge in a
 semi-conductor even if we set
 > epsil = .false.
 >
 > This is due to the routine prepare_q.f90 that is called
 inside
 > do_phonon.f90
 > In the routine there is
 >      IF ( lgamma ) THEN
 >         !
 >         IF ( .NOT. lgauss
 ) THEN
 >            !
 >            ! ... in the
 case of an insulator at q=0 one has to calculate
 >            ! ... the
 dielectric constant and the Born eff. charges
 >            ! ... the
 other flags depend on input
 >            !
 >            epsil =
 .TRUE.
 >            zeu = .TRUE.
 >            zue = .TRUE.
 >
 >
 > This means that if we compute q=Gamma and if we do not
 have
 > gaussian-smearing (i.e. an semi-cond or insulator),
 then epsil is
 > automatically set to TRUE.
 >
 > I know that physically one should have such LO/TO
 splitting but the user
 > should be able to choose.
 >
 > Maybe this forcing could be reported in the input
 variable ? or simply put
 > the default value to .TRUE. instead of false and not
 enforcing that rule?
 >
 > What do you think?
 >
 > Best,
 >
 > Samuel Ponce,
 > Department of Materials, University of Oxford
 > -------------- next part --------------
 > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 > URL:
 > http://pwscf.org/pipermail/pw_forum/attachments/20150613/98210b28/attachment-0001.html
 >
 > ------------------------------
 >
 > Message: 4
 > Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:06:37 +0530
 > From: Umesh Roy <umesh24crp at gmail.com>
 > Subject: [Pw_forum] xml format for dynamical matrix
 > To: pw_forum at pwscf.org
 > Message-ID:
 >         <
 > CAHj-Tq3jXy3Of2ecE8_nwEL-pnaxzjxD2NihDkOZV-SZYc6eaA at mail.gmail.com>
 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
 >
 > Dear All,
 >            I want to
 calculate phonon  for q grid nq1=8, nq2=8, nq3=8 for
 > Gold. As I run the program for phonon , the dynamical
 matrices are written
 > in the xml format. So could not able to get the
 interatomic force
 > constant(IFC) from there.  Why are dynamical
 matrices written in the xml
 > format? How to get IFC from there? Please help.
 >
 >        Thank you in advance.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 *---------------------------------------------------------------------Umesh
 > Chandra RoyResearch Scholar, School of Physical
 SciencesJawaharlal Nehru
 > University, New Delhi-110067,*
 >
 > *India.*
 >
 > *Email:umesh24crp at gmail.com
 <Email%3Aumesh24crp at gmail.com>*
 > *Mobile:+919868022722*
 > -------------- next part --------------
 > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 > URL:
 > http://pwscf.org/pipermail/pw_forum/attachments/20150614/40fb5256/attachment-0001.html
 >
 > ------------------------------
 >
 > Message: 5
 > Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 08:47:12 +0200
 > From: Lorenzo Paulatto <lorenzo.paulatto at impmc.upmc.fr>
 > Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] xml format for dynamical
 matrix
 > To: PWSCF Forum <pw_forum at pwscf.org>
 > Message-ID: <557D2370.3070805 at impmc.upmc.fr>
 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
 >
 > On 14/06/2015 08:36, Umesh Roy wrote:
 > > Dear All,
 > >            I want to
 calculate phonon  for q grid nq1=8, nq2=8, nq3=8
 > > for Gold. As I run the program for phonon , the
 dynamical matrices are
 > > written in the xml format. So could not able to
 get the interatomic
 > > force constant(IFC) from there.  Why are
 dynamical matrices written in
 > > the xml format? How to get IFC from there? Please
 help.
 >
 > If I remember correctly, they are written in xml format
 if you use spin
 > orbit. But q2r can read them, it does not prevent you
 to generate the
 > force constants.
 >
 > As always when asking for help you should provide all
 the information
 > you dispose, in order to get a meaningful answer. In
 particular:
 > 1. what you did (i.e. input files, command lines)
 > 2. what you got (i.e. output files, matdyn files)
 > 3. what you expected to get
 > 4. why you think 3 and 4 are different
 >
 > kind regards
 >
 >
 >
 > --
 > Dr. Lorenzo Paulatto
 > IdR @ IMPMC -- CNRS & Universit? Paris 6
 > +33 (0)1 44 275 084 / skype: paulatz
 > http://www.impmc.upmc.fr/~paulatto/
 > 23-24/4?16 Bo?te courrier 115, 4 place Jussieu 75252
 Paris C?dex 05
 >
 >
 >
 > ------------------------------
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Pw_forum mailing list
 > Pw_forum at pwscf.org
 > http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
 >
 > End of Pw_forum Digest, Vol 95, Issue 13
 > ****************************************
 >
 -------------- next part --------------
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: http://pwscf.org/pipermail/pw_forum/attachments/20150614/236de671/attachment-0001.html
 
 
 ------------------------------
 
 Message: 3
 Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:56:20 +0200
 From: Andrea Dal Corso <dalcorso at sissa.it>
 Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] Bug (or not) with epsil = .false. in
 PH (trunk
     version)
 To: pw_forum at pwscf.org
 Message-ID: <1434354980.30354.18.camel at ulisse.cm.sissa.it>
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 
 On Sat, 2015-06-13 at 16:38 +0100, Samuel Ponc? wrote:
 > Dear all,
 > 
 > I found out that it was impossible de make a phonon
 calculation without
 > calculating the Born effective charge in a
 semi-conductor even if we set
 > epsil = .false.
 > 
 > This is due to the routine prepare_q.f90 that is called
 inside do_phonon.f90
 > In the routine there is
 >      IF ( lgamma ) THEN
 >         !
 >         IF ( .NOT. lgauss
 ) THEN
 >            !
 >            ! ... in the
 case of an insulator at q=0 one has to calculate
 >            ! ... the
 dielectric constant and the Born eff. charges
 >            ! ... the
 other flags depend on input
 >            !
 >            epsil =
 .TRUE.
 >            zeu = .TRUE.
 >            zue = .TRUE.
 > 
 > 
 > This means that if we compute q=Gamma and if we do not
 have
 > gaussian-smearing (i.e. an semi-cond or insulator),
 then epsil is
 > automatically set to TRUE.
 > 
 > I know that physically one should have such LO/TO
 splitting but the user
 > should be able to choose.
 > 
 > Maybe this forcing could be reported in the input
 variable ? or simply put
 > the default value to .TRUE. instead of false and not
 enforcing that rule?
 > 
 > What do you think?
 
 This is true only when ldisp=.TRUE.. If you do a phonon
 calculation at
 gamma with ldisp=.FALSE. you can set/unset the dielectric
 constant
 calculation with the flag epsil.
 
 It has to be like this, otherwise the dispersion would show
 a jump at
 gamma and the interpolation would not work.
 
 HTH,
 
 Andrea
 
 
 > 
 > Best,
 > 
 > Samuel Ponce,
 > Department of Materials, University of Oxford
 > _______________________________________________
 > Pw_forum mailing list
 > Pw_forum at pwscf.org
 > http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
 
 -- 
 Andrea Dal Corso           
         Tel. 0039-040-3787428
 SISSA, Via Bonomea 265         
     Fax. 0039-040-3787249
 I-34136 Trieste (Italy)         
    e-mail: dalcorso at sissa.it
 
 
 
 
 ------------------------------
 
 Message: 4
 Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 01:56:02 -0700
 From: Yusuf Zuntu <yzunt at yahoo.com>
 Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] Pw_forum Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11
 To: pw_forum at pwscf.org
 Message-ID:
     <1434358562.27814.YahooMailBasic at web140701.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
 
 Topic:
 total magnetization and absolute
 magnetization quenched.
 
 Dear Quantum Espresso users,
 
 Can some one bail me out of this problem. In trying to
 repeat some calculations of this article "http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.197207",
 an unexpected magnetic behavior manifest between relax and
 scf calculations. Below are the details of the output:
 
 Relax calculation
 
  the Fermi energy is    -3.1983 ev
 
 !    total energy       
       =    -158.20644301 Ry
      Harris-Foulkes
 estimate   =    -158.20644301 Ry
      estimated scf accuracy   
 <          3.5E-09 Ry
 
      total all-electron energy = 
     -633.159253 Ry
 
      The total energy is the sum of the
 following terms:
 
      one-electron contribution = 
   -664.83395884 Ry
      hartree contribution   
   =     338.58658021 Ry
      xc contribution     
      = 
    -32.69935803 Ry
      ewald contribution   
     =     252.19023776 Ry
      one-center paw
 contrib.   = 
    -51.45032393 Ry
      smearing contrib.
 (-TS)   =   
    0.00037981 Ry
 
      total magnetization   
    =     1.00 Bohr
 mag/cell
      absolute magnetization   
 =     1.08 Bohr mag/cell
 
      convergence has been achieved
 in   5 iterations
 
      Forces acting on atoms (Ry/au):
 
 
      negative rho (up, down): 
 3.821E-04 3.015E-04
      atom    1 type 
 1   force =   
 -0.00036461   -0.00034233   
 0.00000075
      atom    2 type 
 1   force =    -0.00062903 
   0.00015488    0.00000019
      atom    3 type 
 2   force =    -0.00013486 
   0.00026628   -0.00000034
      atom    4 type 
 1   force = 
    0.00046437   -0.00072125   -0.00000023
      atom    5 type 
 2   force = 
    0.00015269   -0.00004785   -0.00000012
      atom    6 type 
 1   force = 
    0.00025566   
 0.00039710   -0.00000008
      atom    7 type 
 2   force = 
    0.00025578   
 0.00029316   -0.00000017
 
      Total force = 
    0.001377     Total SCF
 correction =     0.000117
 
 
      entering subroutine stress ...
 
 
      negative rho (up, down): 
 3.821E-04 3.015E-04
          
 total   stress  (Ry/bohr**3) 
              
    (kbar) 
    P=   -1.16
   -0.00001005   0.00000007 
 -0.00000000     
    -1.48      0.01 
    -0.00
    0.00000007 
 -0.00001037   0.00000000     
     0.01     -1.53 
     0.00
   -0.00000000   0.00000000 
 -0.00000322     
    -0.00      0.00 
    -0.47
 
 
      bfgs converged
 in   7 scf cycles and   6 bfgs
 steps
      (criteria: energy < 
 1.0E-04, force <  1.0E-03)
 
      End of BFGS Geometry Optimization
 
      Final
 energy   =    -158.2064430134 Ry
 Begin final coordinates
 
 ATOMIC_POSITIONS (angstrom)
 C        0.000169362 
 -0.049027525   2.000001268
 C       
 1.246828369   0.669477960   2.000001487
 N       
 2.420687939   0.008258827   1.999996634
 C       
 3.593997961   0.670979132   2.000002839
 N       
 3.579281825   2.018019377   1.999998410
 C       
 2.419168269   2.703396539   2.000003594
 N       
 1.259866274   2.016895690   1.999995769
 End final coordinates.
 
 SCF calculation:
 
 the Fermi energy is    -3.3467 ev
 
 !    total energy       
       =    -110.83170176 Ry
      Harris-Foulkes
 estimate   =    -110.83170172 Ry
      estimated scf accuracy   
 <       0.00000008 Ry
 
      The total energy is the sum of the
 following terms:
 
      one-electron contribution = 
   -665.86218544 Ry
      hartree contribution   
   =     338.49928445 Ry
      xc contribution     
      = 
    -35.54208467 Ry
      ewald contribution   
     =     252.07341919 Ry
      smearing contrib.
 (-TS)   =      -0.00013530 Ry
 
      total magnetization   
    =    -0.00 Bohr mag/cell
      absolute magnetization   
 =     0.00 Bohr mag/cell
 
      convergence has been achieved
 in  14 iterations.
 
 Input files for relax and scf attached.
 
 Yusuf Zuntu
 
 Postgraduate Student
 Universiti Sains Malaysia 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Fri, 6/12/15, pw_forum-request at pwscf.org
 <pw_forum-request at pwscf.org>
 wrote:
 
  Subject: Pw_forum Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11
  To: pw_forum at pwscf.org
  Date: Friday, June 12, 2015, 6:00 PM
  
  Send Pw_forum mailing list
  submissions to
  ??? pw_forum at pwscf.org
  
  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
  ??? http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
  or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
  to
  ??? pw_forum-request at pwscf.org
  
  You can reach the person managing the list at
  ??? pw_forum-owner at pwscf.org
  
  When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
  specific
  than "Re: Contents of Pw_forum digest..."
  
  
  Today's Topics:
  
  ???1. Re: total magnetization and absolute
  magnetization (Elham)
  ???2. Re: total magnetization and absolute
  magnetization
  ? ? ? (Arles V. Gil Rebaza)
  ???3. looking for optimal k-point sampling
  specific to??? monoclinic
  ? ? ? cells (Manuel P?rez Jigato)
  ???4. spin polarization (Tayebeh Roohande)
  ???5. Re: PLUMED and Quantum-ESPRESSO (Paolo
  Giannozzi)
  ???6. Re: spin polarization (Mostafa
  Youssef)
  
  
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  Message: 1
  Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:49:51 +0430
  From: Elham <e.chemistry83 at gmail.com>
  Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] total magnetization and absolute
  magnetization
  To: pw_forum at pwscf.org
  Message-ID:
  ???
  <CAMCFADR0a7v2u8UmtmnwLkR0on_mYkWjHO+cCBoCYe01aO80LA at mail.gmail.com>
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
  
  Dear Rebaza
  Thanks so much
  
  I changed the smearing tag to "mv" or "mp" and didn't see
  changed result
  and so I use? "smearing tag= fd"? job not
  converged.
  
   yes my system is metal I increase degauss to 0.005
 result
  don't changed in
  addition (-TS) is increased.
  
  I change starting magnetization for atoms in input for all
  atoms and
  obtain different total magnetization and absolute
  magnetization.
  which of them is true?I confuse in the spin polarized
  calculation
  
   total magnetization=0 and? absolute
  magnetization=1.44
  
  This is false ?
  I attach files.
  
  Thanks so much
  
  Best Regards
  -------------- next part --------------
  An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
  URL: http://pwscf.org/pipermail/pw_forum/attachments/20150611/d0d984cf/attachment-0001.html
  
  -------------- next part --------------
  A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
  Name: scf-spin.xlsx
  Type:
  application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
  Size: 8865 bytes
  Desc: not available
  Url : http://pwscf.org/pipermail/pw_forum/attachments/20150611/d0d984cf/attachment-0002.bin
  
  -------------- next part --------------
  A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
  Name: scf-spin-D1.xlsx
  Type:
  application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
  Size: 9403 bytes
  Desc: not available
  Url : http://pwscf.org/pipermail/pw_forum/attachments/20150611/d0d984cf/attachment-0003.bin
  
  
  ------------------------------
  
  Message: 2
  Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:29:15 -0300
  From: "Arles V. Gil Rebaza" <arvifis at gmail.com>
  Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] total magnetization and absolute
  magnetization
  To: PWSCF Forum <pw_forum at pwscf.org>
  Message-ID:
  ??? <CABEdBFMJ-qUmpQjS9VQuNnmXzqM82_VXWxDr7TrCGeopv3xubg at mail.gmail.com>
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
  
  Dear Elham, the smearing contribution (-TS) not exactly
 must
  be zero, at
  least in metallic systems. If your system hace C, Fe, N
 and
  O atoms. I
  think that starting_magnetizacion = 0 1 0 0 is the correct
  configuration,
  because only Fe atoms have magnetic behavior, what is the
  magnetic moment
  per atom.?. So, do you expect some value of the total
  magnetization.?
  could you provide me your whole input file, please.
  
  Best
  
  PhD. Arles V. Gil Rebaza
  Instituto de F?sica La Plata
  La Plata - Argentina
  
  2015-06-11 7:19 GMT-03:00 Elham <e.chemistry83 at gmail.com>:
  
  > Dear Rebaza
  > Thanks so much
  >
  > I changed the smearing tag to "mv" or "mp" and didn't
  see changed result
  > and so I use? "smearing tag= fd"? job not
  converged.
  >
  >? yes my system is metal I increase degauss to
  0.005 result don't changed
  > in addition (-TS) is increased.
  >
  > I change starting magnetization for atoms in input
 for
  all atoms and
  > obtain different total magnetization and absolute
  magnetization.
  > which of them is true?I confuse in the spin polarized
  calculation
  >
  >? total magnetization=0 and? absolute
  magnetization=1.44
  >
  > This is false ?
  > I attach files.
  >
  > Thanks so much
  >
  > Best Regards
  >
  > _______________________________________________
  > Pw_forum mailing list
  > Pw_forum at pwscf.org
  > http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
  >
  
  
  
  -- 
  ###--------->???Arles
  V.???<---------###
  -------------- next part --------------
  An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
  URL: http://pwscf.org/pipermail/pw_forum/attachments/20150611/507687fd/attachment-0001.html
  
  
  ------------------------------
  
  Message: 3
  Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:39:37 +0200
  From: Manuel P?rez Jigato <manuel.perez at list.lu>
  Subject: [Pw_forum] looking for optimal k-point sampling
  specific to
  ??? monoclinic cells
  To: "PWSCF Forum" <pw_forum at pwscf.org>
  Message-ID:
  ??? <OF8B1EAA47.37DC3D11-ONC1257E61.004A5309-C1257E61.004B1F48 at list.lu>
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
  
  
  
  hello
  
  I would like to locate a good reference/thesis etc with a
  description of
  k-point sampling appropriate/specific to
  monoclinic cells, if that exists at all. In case there
  exists any rule of
  thumb, general knowledge etc, I would appreciate that
  
  After looking into the literature, I cannot really say
 there
  is anything
  specific, ie everything is too general as to identify a
  good
  strategy to choose your k-point set
  
  After some experimenting, it seems to me it would be
 really
  cumbersome to
  determine an optimal/converged set of k-points, for
  instance,
  whether using shifted Monkhorst-Pack sets with even
  parameters or
  gamma-point centred odd numbers?
  
  thanks in advance
  
  Manuel
  
  
  Dr Manuel P?rez Jigato, Charg? de Recherche
  Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST)
  Materials Research and Technology (MRT)
  41 rue du Brill
  L-4422 BELVAUX
  Grand-Duch? de Luxembourg
  Tel (+352) 47 02 61 - 584
  Fax (+352) 47 02 64
  e-mail? manuel.perez at list.lu
  -------------- next part --------------
  An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
  URL: http://pwscf.org/pipermail/pw_forum/attachments/20150611/f05d0035/attachment-0001.html
  
  
  ------------------------------
  
  Message: 4
  Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:47:23 +0430
  From: Tayebeh Roohande <t.roohande at gmail.com>
  Subject: [Pw_forum] spin polarization
  To: pw_forum at pwscf.org
  Message-ID:
  ???
  <CAObL156=6E7r7V5CcKPs7sfiVMFnpPtzOncuiCwKm0AuBbRO=Q at mail.gmail.com>
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
  
  Dear Quantum-ESPRESSO users and developers,
  
  I want to optimize lattice parameter of my
  structure(SrCoO3). I calculated
  (relaxation)? . The lattice parameter was varied in
  steps of 0.005 angstrom
  .For magnetization of cobalt? ,I used "start
  magnetization"? for Co? . but
  in others papers lattice parameter of SrCO3 is reported
  by? Co ion
  multiplicity(spin state of cobalt)!! for example for Co
 ion
  multiplicity 4
  ,lattice parameter is 3.90 and for Co ion multiplicity 6,
  lattice parameter
  is 3.954!!
  How Co ion multiplicity in input of? relax
  calculation(PW.X) is effected?
  here i attached input file of relax(for optimization
  of? lattice parameter)
  
  
  Sincerely
  Tayebeh Roohandeh
  modares university-IRAN
  -------------- next part --------------
  An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
  URL: http://pwscf.org/pipermail/pw_forum/attachments/20150611/c8ffe766/attachment-0001.html
  
  -------------- next part --------------
  A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
  Name: sco.in
  Type: application/octet-stream
  Size: 1155 bytes
  Desc: not available
  Url : http://pwscf.org/pipermail/pw_forum/attachments/20150611/c8ffe766/attachment-0001.obj
  
  
  ------------------------------
  
  Message: 5
  Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 22:10:55 +0200
  From: Paolo Giannozzi <p.giannozzi at gmail.com>
  Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] PLUMED and Quantum-ESPRESSO
  To: PWSCF Forum <pw_forum at pwscf.org>
  Message-ID:
  ??? <CAPMgbCtKd6Vaz8TEwmw+Q4f4jBkZ+jm4hGcJmO1bWi6PCwGYyA at mail.gmail.com>
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
  
  The patch for plumed v.1.3? was just updated in the svn
  version (to be
  released on june 20) and should work for CP as well. The
  patch for plumed
  v.2.0.5 may require some more work.
  
  Paolo
  
  On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Giovanni La Penna <glapenna at iccom.cnr.it>
  wrote:
  
  >
  > Dear Quantum-ESPRESSO users and developers,
  >
  > The patch to plug PLUMED 2.0.5 into quantum-espresso
  5.0.2
  > (as released in the PLUMED 2.0.5 distribution)
  > works only on the PW code. Does this mean that any
  project
  > to plug PLUMED 2.0 into the Quantum-ESPRESSO CP code
  > has been abandoned? I hope not.
  > Any experimental patch of PLUMED 2.0 (PLUMED 1.0
 works
  > fine) for Quantum-ESPRESSO/CP (5.0.2 or later)
  > is welcome for testing.
  >
  > Thank you,
  >
  >???Giovanni La Penna
  >
  > National research council of Italy (CNR)
  > Institute for chemistry of organometallic compounds
  (ICCOM)
  > Sesto Fiorentino (Firenze), Italy
  > tel.: +39 0555225264 / skype: giovannilapenna
  > _______________________________________________
  > Pw_forum mailing list
  > Pw_forum at pwscf.org
  > http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
  >
  
  
  
  -- 
  Paolo Giannozzi, Dept.
  Chemistry&Physics&Environment,
  Univ. Udine, via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy
  hone +39-0432-558216, fax +39-0432-558222
  -------------- next part --------------
  An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
  URL: http://pwscf.org/pipermail/pw_forum/attachments/20150611/effe465f/attachment-0001.html
  
  
  ------------------------------
  
  Message: 6
  Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 02:19:26 +0000
  From: Mostafa Youssef <myoussef at mit.edu>
  Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] spin polarization
  To: "pw_forum at pwscf.org"
  <pw_forum at pwscf.org>
  Message-ID:
  ??? <0AE34FFC1339F64387D182A8D7E4D99B50D828A6 at OC11EXPO27.exchange.mit.edu>
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
  
  Hi Tayebeh
  
  I think all what you need to calculate a helix of magntic
  moments for Co ions in? SrCO3 would be:
  
  1- Noncollinear calculations.
  2- A larger supercell to accommodate the helix.
  3- Fully relativistic pseudopotentials (such as those in
  Pslib)
  4- Define different Co species each with different
 direction
  for the magnetic moment
  5- You might also wish to use vc_relax rather than relax
  with cell_dofree to fix the volume but vary the shape of
 the
  cell. Or just vc_relax if you want to get a quick answer.
  
  
  I think all these ingredients are available and Pwscf is
  ready to tackle SrCO3 !
  
  
  Mostafa Youssef
  MIT
  
  -------------- next part --------------
  An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
  URL: http://pwscf.org/pipermail/pw_forum/attachments/20150612/4090e665/attachment-0001.html
  
  
  ------------------------------
  
  _______________________________________________
  Pw_forum mailing list
  Pw_forum at pwscf.org
  http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
  
  End of Pw_forum Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11
  ****************************************
 -------------- next part --------------
 A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
 Name: Zuntu-pwscf enquiry
 Type: application/octet-stream
 Size: 2250 bytes
 Desc: not available
 Url : http://pwscf.org/pipermail/pw_forum/attachments/20150615/732d0e9c/attachment-0001.obj
 
 
 ------------------------------
 
 Message: 5
 Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 11:34:53 +0200
 From: Paolo Giannozzi <p.giannozzi at gmail.com>
 Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] Pw_forum Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11
 To: PWSCF Forum <pw_forum at pwscf.org>
 Message-ID:
     <CAPMgbCvZLUBENKz9JJpYCpBd_Sy0oj2xAELE9_WXd4JsAzTOyg at mail.gmail.com>
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
 
 On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Yusuf Zuntu <yzunt at yahoo.com>
 wrote:
 
 Input files for relax and scf attached.
 >
 
 they use different pseudopotentials and k-points
 
 P.
 -- 
 Paolo Giannozzi, Dept.
 Chemistry&Physics&Environment,
 Univ. Udine, via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy
 hone +39-0432-558216, fax +39-0432-558222
 -------------- next part --------------
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: http://pwscf.org/pipermail/pw_forum/attachments/20150615/b415b812/attachment-0001.html
 
 
 ------------------------------
 
 _______________________________________________
 Pw_forum mailing list
 Pw_forum at pwscf.org
 http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
 
 End of Pw_forum Digest, Vol 95, Issue 14
 ****************************************
 




More information about the users mailing list