<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<atom:link href="http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/extern.php?action=feed&amp;tid=1731&amp;type=rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<title><![CDATA[Multiwfn forum / Difference in Critical Points Results Between My Calculation and Refer]]></title>
		<link>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?id=1731</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in Difference in Critical Points Results Between My Calculation and Refer.]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2025 20:06:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>FluxBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Difference in Critical Points Results Between My Calculation and Refer]]></title>
			<link>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=5341#p5341</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="quotebox"><cite>syrine boussadia wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><p>If I convert my checkpoint file (.chk) to a formatted checkpoint file (.fch) using Gaussian 09, and then convert it to a .wfn file using Multiwfn, does this process cause any difference in the final results of the AIM analysis? Also, does the Gaussian version (09 vs. 16) affect the results</p></div></blockquote></div><p>This doesn&#039;t lose accuracy for topology analysis. However I suggest directly using .fch as input file of Multiwfn.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (sobereva)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2025 20:06:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=5341#p5341</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Difference in Critical Points Results Between My Calculation and Refer]]></title>
			<link>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=5339#p5339</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>If I convert my checkpoint file (.chk) to a formatted checkpoint file (.fch) using Gaussian 09, and then convert it to a .wfn file using Multiwfn, does this process cause any difference in the final results of the AIM analysis? Also, does the Gaussian version (09 vs. 16) affect the results</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (syrine boussadia)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2025 17:27:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=5339#p5339</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Difference in Critical Points Results Between My Calculation and Refer]]></title>
			<link>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=5338#p5338</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>I cannot comment without more information. Please make sure that your wavefunction file is the same as your professor, and all inputted commands are the same.</p><p>I don&#039;t know how did you prepare your present wavefunction file, however, as you can exactly reproduce the example in Multiwfn manual, the commands you inputted in Multiwfn should be correct.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (sobereva)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2025 15:40:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=5338#p5338</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Difference in Critical Points Results Between My Calculation and Refer]]></title>
			<link>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=5337#p5337</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Hello,</p><p>I repeated the example from the file 2-pyridoxine_2-aminopyridine.wfn taken from the Multiwfn 3.8 manual. With this example, I obtain the same results for the critical points (CP), like position (Bohr), density of all electrons, etc., as those shown in the manual and with VMD.</p><p>However, when I apply the same procedure to my own molecule, my results differ from those provided by my professor.</p><p>Could you help me understand why there is this difference?</p><p>Thank you in advance!</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (syrine boussadia)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2025 11:38:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=5337#p5337</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
