|
From: Karol L. <kar...@kn...> - 2007-01-31 13:05:42
|
Hi,
I'm wondering about the basis sets output by Jaguar... they have me stumped,
since the contraction coefficients for the SP gaussian primitives are totally
different than those given by GAMESS and Gaussian.
Compare the STO-3G function for carbon that I found in the cclib test
logfiles.
Gaussian:
S 3 1.00 0.000000000000
0.7161683735D+02 0.1543289673D+00
0.1304509632D+02 0.5353281423D+00
0.3530512160D+01 0.4446345422D+00
SP 3 1.00 0.000000000000
0.2941249355D+01 -0.9996722919D-01 0.1559162750D+00
0.6834830964D+00 0.3995128261D+00 0.6076837186D+00
0.2222899159D+00 0.7001154689D+00 0.3919573931D+00
Jaguar:
s j
h c i n
e o s f
l n h s
atom l t l l h z coef rcoef
-------- --- --- -- -- --- ---------- ---------- ---------
C1 1 3 0 1 0 71.6168373 0.1543290 2.7078144
C1 2 -1 0 1 0 13.0450963 0.5353281 2.6188802
C1 3 -1 0 1 0 3.5305122 0.4446345 0.8161906
C1 4 2 2 1 1 2.9412494 -0.2956454 -0.4732386
C1 5 -4 2 1 1 0.6834831 1.1815287 0.6329949
C1 6 2 -1 2 2 2.9412494 0.2213487 1.2152952
C1 7 -6 -1 2 2 0.6834831 0.8627064 0.7642102
C1 8 1 1 1 1 0.2222899 1.0000000 0.2307278
C1 9 1 -1 2 2 0.2222899 1.0000000 0.2175654
The coefficient for the S shells are the same, but the ones for SP are not.
Does anybody know how to explain this, and eventually how to interconvert? I
assume that the STO-3G functions used in both programs are identical, so it
should be possible. Or, where should I ask about this? Maybe this is the
reason why there's no gbasis attribute for the Jaguar parser yet?
Karol
--
written by Karol Langner
Wed Jan 31 14:00:32 CET 2007
|