<?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=524&amp;type=rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<title><![CDATA[Multiwfn forum / Using different model chemistry for opt and NBO calculations]]></title>
		<link>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?id=524</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in Using different model chemistry for opt and NBO calculations.]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2021 01:05:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>FluxBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Using different model chemistry for opt and NBO calculations]]></title>
			<link>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=1873#p1873</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>The calculation level of geometry optimization and NBO analysis can be different.</p><p>6-31G is too poor for geometry optimization purpose (especially for heteroatoms such as nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur...), you should at least use 6-31G*.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (sobereva)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2021 01:05:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=1873#p1873</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Using different model chemistry for opt and NBO calculations]]></title>
			<link>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=1871#p1871</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Hi</p><p>I am intended to optimize a system including more than 100 atoms. The standard model chemistry that I am going to use for the optimization process is pbepbe/6-31G. Since the structural properties do not depend on absolute energy differences (but relative energy differences), I am of the opinion that such a model chemistry is sufficient. </p><p>However, to account for long-range and dispersion effects to the total energy, I need a larger basis set and a functional belong to Rung four in Jacob&#039;s ladder (something like wB97XD/6-311G(2d) level of theory). I use the optimized structure obtained from the former calculation as input geometry for the NBO study. </p><p>Some people claim that both optimization and NBO model chemistry should be the same. The question is &quot;why&quot;? <br />I cannot understand the reason behind this idea. I am not intended to compare opt and NBO energies; so why should both calculations perform by the same method?</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (msn_dm)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jul 2021 18:02:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://sobereva.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=1871#p1871</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
