<![CDATA[Multiwfn forum / sobEDA analysis using unavailable functional]]> //www.umsyar.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?id=948 The most recent posts in sobEDA analysis using unavailable functional. Sun, 04 Feb 2024 20:14:54 +0000 FluxBB <![CDATA[Re: sobEDA analysis using unavailable functional]]> //www.umsyar.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=3621#p3621

Thank you very very much.
Saeed

dummy@example.com (saeed_E) Sun, 04 Feb 2024 20:14:54 +0000 //www.umsyar.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=3621#p3621
<![CDATA[Re: sobEDA analysis using unavailable functional]]> //www.umsyar.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=3620#p3620

It is true.

dummy@example.com (sobereva) Sat, 03 Feb 2024 19:31:09 +0000 //www.umsyar.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=3620#p3620
<![CDATA[Re: sobEDA analysis using unavailable functional]]> //www.umsyar.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=3619#p3619

Dear Tian,
Too many thanks for your highly kind attention to prompt reply with nice and very informative comment, my nice friend.
Indeed, I am studying some reactions through ASM (activation strain model) analysis in the presence various solvents both implicitly and explicitly. Some of solvents, as you know much better than me, are able to form hydrogen bonds (HB) with reactants when they are employed explicitly. I am interested to consider such HB along solvation process. My computation level is M06-2X-D3(0)/6-311++G(d,p) and total strain, interaction, and solvation energies were computed at this level. For reactions which are under interaction energy control, we have to decompose interaction energy to its different components. Based on your nice comments and if my understanding is not wrong, while the value of Delta_E(strain,tot) and Delta_E(int) have been computed at a given level, we are allowed to decompose Delta_E(int) into its components using a completely different functional and basis set. Is it quite true?

Sincerely yours,
Saeed

dummy@example.com (saeed_E) Sat, 03 Feb 2024 08:19:08 +0000 //www.umsyar.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=3619#p3619
<![CDATA[Re: sobEDA analysis using unavailable functional]]> //www.umsyar.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=3618#p3618

Dear Saeed,

Just use other functionals. There is no absolute reason to use M06-2X to study weak interaction. As shown in Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2017, 19, 32184, BHandHLYP-D3(BJ) or B3LYP-D3(BJ) also works fairly well for studying weak interaction energies. You can use M06-2X to estimate interaction energy, while use sobEDAw with BHandHLYP-D3(BJ) or B3LYP-D3(BJ) to provide insight into the components of the interaction energy, there is no evident inconsistency. Usually, the interaction energies obtained by the functionals are very close with each other.

Best,

Tian

dummy@example.com (sobereva) Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:53:20 +0000 //www.umsyar.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=3618#p3618
<![CDATA[sobEDA analysis using unavailable functional]]> //www.umsyar.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=3617#p3617

Dear Tian,

Please suppose one wants to perform a sobEDAW analysis on a weakly bonded complex at M06-2X-D3(0)/6-311++G(d,p) level. As you know better than me, this functional and basis set has not already been included in the "sobEDA.sh" script. In addition, neither the M06-2X-D3(0) functional nor 6-311++G(d,p) basis set was found in Tables 1 and 2 of the corresponding article you published to extract out value of c, a, and r parametrs. If possible, please let me know how M06-2X-D3(0)/6-311++G(d,p) level could be used for a sobEDAW analysis.

Sincerely,
Saeed

dummy@example.com (saeed_E) Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:33:09 +0000 //www.umsyar.com/wfnbbs/viewtopic.php?pid=3617#p3617
Baidu
map