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 |