From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Wed Jun 10 03:54:00 2015 From: "Andreas Klamt klamt.:.cosmologic.de" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Proper way of doing a Boltzmann average Message-Id: <-51437-150610023511-8059-c73jJOZr/4TplK6BT+iflQ~~server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Andreas Klamt Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:35:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Andreas Klamt [klamt#,#cosmologic.de] Hi Gustavo, obviously you have to take AB and BA into account, or in other words give a multiplicity of 2 to the mixed dimer. Best regards Andreas Am 10.06.2015 um 02:37 schrieb Gustavo L.C. Moura gustavo.moura|a|ufpe.br: > Sent to CCL by: "Gustavo L.C. Moura" [gustavo.moura%x%ufpe.br] > Dear CCL community, > I am seeking advice about the proper way of calculating a Boltzmann average. > For the sake of argument, let us say that I have a molecule that may assume only two distinct conformations A and B. I have no problems calculating the Boltzmann averaged property in this case. > However, I have strong theoretical and experimental evidences that my molecule forms a hydrogen bonded dimer. The dimerization process does not affect the flexibility of each monomer and they still have the same two conformations A and B as before. I have no problems dealing with the averaging process for the dimers in conformations AA and BB (they are unique). My problem is with conformations AB and BA. The two dimers can be superimposed (and are technically equal), but I still know which monomer has each conformation. > My question is: should I include both dimers in the Boltzmann average or should I include only one of them in the Boltzmann average? > Your advice is most welcome. > Thank you very much in advance. > Sincerely yours, > Gustavo L.C. Moura> > > -- -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt CEO / Geschäftsführer COSMOlogic GmbH & Co. KG Imbacher Weg 46 D-51379 Leverkusen, Germany phone +49-2171-731681 fax +49-2171-731689 e-mail klamt**cosmologic.de web www.cosmologic.de [University address: Inst. of Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Regensburg] HRA 20653 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt Komplementaer: COSMOlogic Verwaltungs GmbH HRB 49501 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Wed Jun 10 06:13:00 2015 From: "Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch||gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Proper way of doing a Boltzmann average Message-Id: <-51438-150610061126-19075-qGxR1eIxXknqcjiYFGtwRA%server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Sebastian Kozuch Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:10:37 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Sebastian Kozuch [seb.kozuch|gmail.com] Dear Gustavo,
The matter you are pointing to is not obvious. The partition function may depend on the symmetry number and the indistinguishability of the two systems, factors that can change the Boltzmann distribution. I hope someone with real knowledge can help you, but maybe you can obtain some guidance from the work on reaction rates of Fernandez-Ramos et al. (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00214-007-0328-0).

Best,
Sebastian

On 10/06/2015 03:37, Gustavo L.C. Moura gustavo.moura|a|ufpe.br wrote:
Sent to CCL by: "Gustavo L.C. Moura" [gustavo.moura%x%ufpe.br]
Dear CCL community,
I am seeking advice about the proper way of calculating a Boltzmann average.
For the sake of argument, let us say that I have a molecule that may assume only two distinct conformations A and B. I have no problems calculating the Boltzmann averaged property in this case.
However, I have strong theoretical and experimental evidences that my molecule forms a hydrogen bonded dimer. The dimerization process does not affect the flexibility of each monomer and they still have the same two conformations A and B as before. I have no problems dealing with the averaging process for the dimers in conformations AA and BB (they are unique). My problem is with conformations AB and BA. The two dimers can be superimposed (and are technically equal), but I still know which monomer has each conformation.
My question is: should I include both dimers in the Boltzmann average or should I include only one of them in the Boltzmann average?
Your advice is most welcome.
Thank you very much in advance.
Sincerely yours,
			Gustavo L.C. MouraE-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY-$-ccl.net or use:
      http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST-$-ccl.net or use
      http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net

Job: http://www.ccl.net/jobs 
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/

Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

RTFI: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/



From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Wed Jun 10 10:10:01 2015 From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_Farias_de_Moura?= moura|,|ufscar.br" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Proper way of doing a Boltzmann average Message-Id: <-51439-150610092720-22587-uohzEWuFj72l/wF/S18Cjw::server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_Farias_de_Moura?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cee2a2d2835051829d5dd Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:27:12 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_Farias_de_Moura?= [moura]*[ufscar.br] --001a113cee2a2d2835051829d5dd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Gustavo, apart from considering formal arguments on symmetry and (in)distinguishability of molecules, you might also consider the outcome of a typical molecular dynamics or Monte Carlo simulation, both of which will sample the specified ensemble without actually knowing/solving the partition function. If a stable dimer is observed, each monomer may sample its available configurations A and B, and unless the configuration of one monomer affects the configuration of the other, which would be the case for strongly interacting, cooperative systems, then each monomer would sample its configurations independently and you would have A-A, A-B, B-A and B-B with equal weights. This is not always observed. Consider for instance amino acids forming an alpha-helix within any protein: each new amino acid which you add to the system will sense the strong, collective dipole moment arising from the amino acids which are already there, so the incoming monomer is not actually free to sample any orientation, instead it will most likely align its dipole to the alpha-helix dipole moment. Please mind that amino acids comprising an alpha helix interact by means of 1-4 hydrogen bonds (between every first and fourth monomers), just like your model dimer does, but the strong and cooperative interaction in this case is the dipole-dipole interaction between the alpha-helix and the incoming monomers, which modulates which regions of the phase space will be sampled most likely. IMHO, the most tricky part of partition function approaches to study more complex system is the fact that you have to know a priori how strong and complex the mixed interactions between particles might be, and that's why I prefer to rely on either MD or MC simulations to sample the phase space without actually knowing the partition function. But I have to admit that success is not always guaranteed, since poor sampling is quite often observed as the complexity of the potential energy surfaces increases. For a (not so large) dimer, this should not be the case and you should be able to perform a high quality MD/MC sampling, either proving or disproving that each monomer can sample its configurational phase space independently from the other. best, Andre On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch||gmail.com < owner-chemistry%ccl.net> wrote: > Sent to CCL by: Sebastian Kozuch [seb.kozuch|gmail.com] > Dear Gustavo, > The matter you are pointing to is not obvious. The partition function may > depend on the symmetry number and the indistinguishability of the two > systems, factors that can change the Boltzmann distribution. I hope someo= ne > with real knowledge can help you, but maybe you can obtain some guidance > from the work on reaction rates of Fernandez-Ramos et al. ( > http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00214-007-0328-0). > > Best, > Sebastian > > On 10/06/2015 03:37, Gustavo L.C. Moura gustavo.moura|a|ufpe.br wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: "Gustavo L.C. Moura" [gustavo.moura%x%ufpe.br] > Dear CCL community, > I am seeking advice about the proper way of calculating a Boltzmann avera= ge. > For the sake of argument, let us say that I have a molecule that may assu= me only two distinct conformations A and B. I have no problems calculating = the Boltzmann averaged property in this case. > However, I have strong theoretical and experimental evidences that my mol= ecule forms a hydrogen bonded dimer. The dimerization process does not affe= ct the flexibility of each monomer and they still have the same two conform= ations A and B as before. I have no problems dealing with the averaging pro= cess for the dimers in conformations AA and BB (they are unique). My proble= m is with conformations AB and BA. The two dimers can be superimposed (and = are technically equal), but I still know which monomer has each conformatio= n. > My question is: should I include both dimers in the Boltzmann average or = should I include only one of them in the Boltzmann average? > Your advice is most welcome. > Thank you very much in advance. > Sincerely yours, > Gustavo L.C. MouraE-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY---ccl.net or use:> > E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST---ccl.net or usehttp://www.ccl.net/c= hemistry/sub_unsub.shtml > > -=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script = =3D-look u= p > the X-Original-From: line in the mail header. E-mail to subscribers: > CHEMISTRY%ccl.net or use:Before posting, check wait > time at: http://www.ccl.netConferences: > http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/ Search > Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml If your mail > bounces from CCL with 5.7.1 error, check:> --=20 _____________ Prof. Dr. Andr=C3=A9 Farias de Moura Department of Chemistry Federal University of S=C3=A3o Carlos S=C3=A3o Carlos - Brazil phone: +55-16-3351-8090 --001a113cee2a2d2835051829d5dd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Gustavo,

apart from considering fo= rmal arguments on symmetry and (in)distinguishability of molecules, you mig= ht also consider the outcome of a typical molecular dynamics or Monte Carlo= simulation, both of which will sample the specified ensemble without actua= lly knowing/solving the partition function. If a stable dimer is observed, = each monomer may sample its available configurations A and B, and unless th= e configuration of one monomer affects the configuration of the other, whic= h would be the case for strongly interacting, cooperative systems, then eac= h monomer would sample its configurations independently and you would have = A-A, A-B, B-A and B-B with equal weights.

This is = not always observed. Consider for instance amino acids forming an alpha-hel= ix within any protein: each new amino acid which you add to the system will= sense the strong, collective dipole moment arising from the amino acids wh= ich are already there, so the incoming monomer is not actually free to samp= le any orientation, instead it will most likely align its dipole to the alp= ha-helix dipole moment. Please mind that amino acids comprising an alpha he= lix interact by means of 1-4 hydrogen bonds (between every first and fourth= monomers), just like your model dimer does, but the strong and cooperative= interaction in this case is the dipole-dipole interaction between the alph= a-helix and the incoming monomers, which modulates which regions of the pha= se space will be sampled most likely.

IMHO, the mo= st tricky part of partition function approaches to study more complex syste= m is the fact that you have to know a priori how strong and complex the mix= ed interactions between particles might be, and that's why I prefer to = rely on either MD or MC simulations to sample the phase space without actua= lly knowing the partition function. But I have to admit that success is not= always guaranteed, since poor sampling is quite often observed as the comp= lexity of the potential energy surfaces increases. For a (not so large) dim= er, this should not be the case and you should be able to perform a high qu= ality MD/MC sampling, either proving or disproving that each monomer can sa= mple its configurational phase space independently from the other.

best,

Andre

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:1= 0 AM, Sebastian Kozuch seb.kozuch||gmail.com <owner-chemistry%ccl.net> wrote:
Sent to CCL by: Sebastian Kozuch [seb.kozuch|gmail.com] =20 =20 =20 =20
Dear Gustavo,
The matter you are pointing to is not obvious. The partition function may depend on the symmetry number and the indistinguishability of the two systems, factors that can change the Boltzmann distribution. I hope someone with real knowledge can help you, but maybe you can obtain some guidance from the work on reaction rates of Fernandez-Ramos et al. (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00214-007-0328= -0).

Best,
Sebastian

On 10/06/2015 03:37, Gustavo L.C. Moura gustavo.moura|a|ufpe.br<= /a> wrote:
Sent to CCL by: "Gustavo L.C. Moura" =
[gustavo.moura%x%ufpe.br]
Dear CCL community,
I am seeking advice about the proper way of calculating a Boltzmann average=
.
For the sake of argument, let us say that I have a molecule that may assume=
 only two distinct conformations A and B. I have no problems calculating th=
e Boltzmann averaged property in this case.
However, I have strong theoretical and experimental evidences that my molec=
ule forms a hydrogen bonded dimer. The dimerization process does not affect=
 the flexibility of each monomer and they still have the same two conformat=
ions A and B as before. I have no problems dealing with the averaging proce=
ss for the dimers in conformations AA and BB (they are unique). My problem =
is with conformations AB and BA. The two dimers can be superimposed (and ar=
e technically equal), but I still know which monomer has each conformation.
My question is: should I include both dimers in the Boltzmann average or sh=
ould I include only one of them in the Boltzmann average?
Your advice is most welcome.
Thank you very much in advance.
Sincerely yours,
			Gustavo L.C. MouraE-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY---ccl.net or use:
      http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST---ccl.net or use
      http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.c=
cl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net

Job: http://www.ccl.n=
et/jobs=20
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/co=
nferences/

Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

RTFI: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/






--
=
_____________

Prof. Dr. Andr=C3=A9 Farias de Moura
Department of Chemistry
Federal University of S=C3=A3o Carlos
S=C3=A3o Carlos - Brazil
phone: +55-16-3351-8090
--001a113cee2a2d2835051829d5dd-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Wed Jun 10 11:30:01 2015 From: "Jason D Biggs jason.biggs]-[mpsd.mpg.de" To: CCL Subject: CCL:G: G09 CASSCF dipole moments for multiple states Message-Id: <-51440-150610104923-24264-ABF2GAhZuZHbPu87plEQGA*o*server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Jason D Biggs" Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:49:18 -0400 Sent to CCL by: "Jason D Biggs" [jason.biggs]=[mpsd.mpg.de] I am using G09 to get potential energy and dipole moment surfaces for a dissociation reaction. I am using a CASSCF procedure, with the stateaverage option to get between 3 and 5 electronic states. I have implemented a dynamic weighting procedure, as described in http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1667468, to adjust the weights needed. However, I need to get the dipole moments for all of the states. When I use the CASSCF(10,10,NRoot=3,StateAverage) keyword, the dipole and quadrupole moments printed in the output files belong to the third state. How can I get it to print the dipole (and hopefully the quadrupole) for all three states? Is the information needed to calculate these included in the formatted checkpoint file somehow? Right now I am doing a clumsy workaround to get the dipole moment by performing additional calculations with a small positive and negative external field and approximating the dipole via finite difference, but this is much less accurate than I would like. I am including the input file and the end of the output file below. Thank you for your help Jason Biggs Max Planck Institute for the Structure and Dynamics of Matter jason.biggs : mpsd.mpg.de ****************BEGIN INPUT FILE*************** %nproc=4 %mem=6000MB %chk=checkfile.chk #P CASSCF(10,10,NRoot=3,StateAverage)/cc-pVTZ SP NoSymm SCF= (Maxcycles=999,Conver=7) Guess=Read acetylene - {r2,r3,r4,a3,a4,d4} = {0.90928, 1.92494, 8.07387, 113., 100., 116.} 0 1 H -0.75228800 -0.36691500 1.31775600 C 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.96247200 C 0.00000000 0.00000000 -0.96247200 H 0.00000000 7.95121000 -2.36448500 0.3556587 0.3553368 0.2890045 ****************END INPUT FILE*************** ****************BEGIN OUTPUT FILE*************** * * * * * * Convergence achieved on expansion vectors. ibunc,ibunc2,ibuvec 641 640 23 Energy state 1 = -76.5889911609 Full Convergence on CI vector Energy state 2 = -76.5874291020 Full Convergence on CI vector Energy state 3 = -76.5644879735 Full Convergence on CI vector ( 1) Eigenvalue -76.5889911609 ( 7) 0.8250729 ( 85) 0.2737983 ( 79) 0.1815672 ( 281)-0.1314268 ( 83)-0.1173664 ( 38) 0.0944442 ( 173) 0.0919665 ( 566)-0.0903250 ( 25)-0.0871232 ( 283) 0.0827685 ( 277)-0.0801230 ( 240) 0.0743499 ( 586)-0.0705700 ( 621)-0.0705125 ( 304)-0.0700869 ( 717)-0.0674905 ( 14)-0.0673816 ( 2406)-0.0667849 ( 562) 0.0613399 ( 602) 0.0597533 ( 388)-0.0553216 ( 338)-0.0551375 ( 568) 0.0546355 ( 84) 0.0513487 ( 1239) 0.0491950 ( 9308) 0.0472440 ( 313)-0.0441131 ( 2371)-0.0440872 ( 349)-0.0419662 ( 1804)-0.0413126 ( 601) 0.0402034 ( 2476)-0.0400319 ( 1315)-0.0400275 ( 389)-0.0393852 ( 1829) 0.0374472 ( 400) 0.0365099 ( 251) 0.0359565 ( 1232) 0.0352898 ( 1843) 0.0345340 ( 324)-0.0334927 ( 634)-0.0322458 ( 754)-0.0322006 ( 1339) 0.0314820 ( 2422)-0.0311026 ( 109) 0.0308419 ( 1264)-0.0308266 ( 1290)-0.0306623 ( 948) 0.0306284 ( 250) 0.0305856 ( 1616)-0.0288972 ( ( 2) Eigenvalue -76.5874291020 ( 37)-0.8416198 ( 176)-0.2299185 ( 172) 0.1995349 ( 178) 0.1769444 ( 49) 0.1382642 ( 88)-0.0957865 ( 953)-0.0838898 ( 100) 0.0811579 ( 1016) 0.0740859 ( 997)-0.0721595 ( 185) 0.0655289 ( 177) 0.0646509 ( 41)-0.0612707 ( 951) 0.0589365 ( 195) 0.0581258 ( 319)-0.0520544 ( 750)-0.0490466 ( 10713)-0.0479734 ( 2685)-0.0473214 ( 947)-0.0468510 ( 971) 0.0467883 ( 3141) 0.0463757 ( 789)-0.0463620 ( 725)-0.0460412 ( 1768) 0.0443779 ( 960)-0.0436890 ( 286) 0.0436550 ( 197)-0.0422161 ( 639) 0.0407035 ( 972) 0.0390194 ( 1554) 0.0384060 ( 760)-0.0382503 ( 196)-0.0380531 ( 3221) 0.0379967 ( 1576) 0.0379850 ( 996)-0.0365285 ( 1733) 0.0354209 ( 3167) 0.0350598 ( 278)-0.0350405 ( 713) 0.0348432 ( 344)-0.0346497 ( 1555)-0.0335733 ( 1580)-0.0326605 ( 345) 0.0322086 ( 80) 0.0315977 ( 114)-0.0312091 ( 287) 0.0308782 ( 2650)-0.0295523 ( 1015) 0.0294429 ( 1849) 0.0293111 ( ( 3) Eigenvalue -76.5644879735 ( 172) 0.5342466 ( 49)-0.5342465 ( 41) 0.5342465 ( 953)-0.0890418 ( 750) 0.0890418 ( 713)-0.0890418 ( 178) 0.0856108 ( 100)-0.0856108 ( 88) 0.0856107 ( 1048) 0.0567194 ( 760) 0.0523159 ( 1235) 0.0523159 ( 960)-0.0523159 ( 1566)-0.0515941 ( 1026)-0.0515941 ( 1070) 0.0515941 ( 1004)-0.0487679 ( 1547) 0.0479783 ( 605) 0.0429686 ( 2764) 0.0360142 ( 2692)-0.0360142 ( 3627)-0.0360142 ( 1247)-0.0342730 ( 732)-0.0342730 ( 769) 0.0342730 ( 2403)-0.0328751 ( 2075) 0.0328751 ( 2013)-0.0328751 ( 186) 0.0323730 ( 223) 0.0323730 ( 204)-0.0323730 ( 799) 0.0314735 ( 10722)-0.0307448 ( 10867) 0.0307448 ( 12531)-0.0307448 ( 1335)-0.0306839 ( 3253)-0.0305282 ( 639)-0.0297404 ( 952)-0.0282113 ( 972) 0.0280229 ( 1015)-0.0280229 ( 1059) 0.0280229 ( 344)-0.0279854 ( 3310) 0.0276237 ( 3231)-0.0276237 ( 4156)-0.0276237 ( 278)-0.0274039 ( 235) 0.0274039 ( 379) 0.0274039 ( 1321)-0.0267127 ( Final one electron symbolic density matrix: 1 2 3 4 5 1 0.198538D+01 2 -0.240983D-03 0.195774D+01 3 -0.182478D-02 0.335867D-02 0.188939D+01 4 -0.330329D-06 -0.636472D-06 0.507668D-05 0.930609D+00 5 -0.563923D-02 -0.135205D-01 0.450099D-01 -0.235694D-05 0.102154D+01 6 0.479266D-06 -0.364746D-06 -0.347334D-05 -0.265055D+00 -0.540033D- 05 7 0.353266D-03 -0.250491D-02 -0.625743D-02 0.248503D-07 -0.461722D- 02 8 0.147369D-06 -0.432863D-07 0.507815D-06 0.490213D-05 -0.416080D- 06 9 0.354256D-01 -0.211762D-01 0.546721D-02 -0.157903D-05 -0.245292D- 01 10 -0.363852D-02 -0.794475D-02 -0.573717D-01 -0.597255D-06 0.280335D- 01 6 7 8 9 10 6 0.117083D+00 7 -0.361203D-07 0.129086D-01 8 0.935843D-05 0.568991D-07 0.100000D+01 9 -0.322053D-06 0.817966D-02 0.286450D-06 0.100710D+01 10 0.126543D-05 0.367754D-03 -0.523519D-06 0.387557D-01 0.782448D- 01 MCSCF converged. Leave Link 510 at Wed Jun 10 16:25:41 2015, MaxMem= 786432000 cpu: 247.6 (Enter /usr/local/g09/l601.exe) Copying SCF densities to generalized density rwf, IOpCl= 0 IROHF=3. ********************************************************************** Population analysis using the SCF density. ********************************************************************** Alpha occ. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha occ. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Alpha virt. eigenvalues -- 0.00000 Condensed to atoms (all electrons): 1 2 3 4 1 H 0.392968 0.369908 -0.016664 0.000000 2 C 0.369908 5.636390 0.211053 0.000000 3 C -0.016664 0.211053 5.842047 0.000000 4 H 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 Mulliken atomic charges: 1 1 H 0.253788 2 C -0.217351 3 C -0.036436 4 H 0.000000 Sum of Mulliken atomic charges = 0.00000 Mulliken charges with hydrogens summed into heavy atoms: 1 2 C 0.036436 3 C -0.036436 Sum of Mulliken charges with hydrogens summed into heavy atoms = 0.00000 Electronic spatial extent (au): = 325.0416 Charge= 0.0000 electrons Dipole moment (field-independent basis, Debye): X= -0.7058 Y= -0.3450 Z= 1.1250 Tot= 1.3721 Quadrupole moment (field-independent basis, Debye-Ang): XX= -14.0946 YY= -13.5058 ZZ= -13.9718 XY= -0.3799 XZ= -1.1945 YZ= -0.5819 Traceless Quadrupole moment (field-independent basis, Debye-Ang): XX= -0.2372 YY= 0.3516 ZZ= -0.1144 XY= -0.3799 XZ= -1.1945 YZ= -0.5819 Octapole moment (field-independent basis, Debye-Ang**2): XXX= 0.4665 YYY= -31.7645 ZZZ= 12.2088 XYY= 0.2003 XXY= -10.6756 XXZ= 3.5374 XZZ= -0.4858 YZZ= -10.8997 YYZ= 2.5248 XYZ= 0.6509 Hexadecapole moment (field-independent basis, Debye-Ang**3): XXXX= -18.6018 YYYY= -525.8846 ZZZZ= -134.9809 XXXY= -0.7285 XXXZ= 0.3856 YYYX= -0.7360 YYYZ= 76.1737 ZZZX= -0.7143 ZZZY= 75.2838 XXYY= -90.5391 XXZZ= -25.4878 YYZZ= -109.2817 XXYZ= 25.1350 YYXZ= 0.1252 ZZXY= -0.6302 N-N= 1.551518144653D+01 E-N=-2.094867425280D+02 KE= 7.669972288766D+01 No NMR shielding tensors so no spin-rotation constants. Leave Link 601 at Wed Jun 10 16:25:42 2015, MaxMem= 786432000 cpu: 0.6 (Enter /usr/local/g09/l9999.exe) 1\1\GINC-CFELM-PCX25813\SP\CASSCF\CC-pVTZ\C2H2\JASON\10-Jun-2015\0\\#P CASSCF(10,10,NRoot=3,StateAverage)/cc-pVTZ SP NoSymm SCF=(Maxcycles=9 99,Conver=7) Guess=Read\\acetylene - {r2,r3,r4,a3,a4,d4} = {0.90928, 1 .92494, 8.07387, 113., 100., 116.}\\0,1\H,0,-0.752288,-0.366915,1.3177 56\C,0,0.,0.,0.962472\C,0,0.,0.,-0.962472\H,0,0.,7.95121,-2.364485\\Ve rsion=EM64L-G09RevA.02\HF=-76.564488\RMSD=0.000e+00\Dipole=-0.2776996, -0.1357149,0.4425974\Quadrupole=-0.1763541,0.2614179,-0.0850639,-0.282 4647,-0.8880908,-0.4326001\PG=C01 [X(C2H2)]\\ : THE RED LIGHT IS ALWAYS LONGER THAN THE GREEN LIGHT. -- PETER'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY Job cpu time: 0 days 0 hours 4 minutes 11.5 seconds. File lengths (MBytes): RWF= 225 Int= 0 D2E= 0 Chk= 1 Scr= 1 Normal termination of Gaussian 09 at Wed Jun 10 16:25:42 2015. From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Wed Jun 10 13:50:01 2015 From: "Ross Walker rcw|a|sdsc.edu" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Announcement: AMBER Workshop - London, Mon Jul 6 to Fri Jul 10. Message-Id: <-51441-150610122837-20805-Gbv8AaAYXW+jrp71wHM5NQ||server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Ross Walker" Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:28:35 -0400 Sent to CCL by: "Ross Walker" [rcw/./sdsc.edu] REGISTRATION DEADLINE: June 15th - This coming Monday! <<>> Dear All, You are cordially invited to attend an AMBER Molecular Dynamics training workshop to be held at Imperial College London from Mon July 6th to Fri July 10th 2015. This workshop is being hosted jointly by the EPSRC UK National Service for Computational Chemistry Software, the AMBER Development Team and NVIDIA Inc. Details and registration information can be found here: http://www.nsccs.ac.uk/AMBER2015.php Scope of the workshop: This five day workshop will introduce researchers in the field of molecular simulations to the broad collection of computational toolsimplemented in the AMBER and AmberTools software packages for molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. It will consist of a combination of lectures and hands on tutorials that provide comprehensive introduction to molecular dynamics and molecular simulation focusing on practical application of version 15 of the AMBER MD software. The workshop consists of a series of lectures followed by hands-on lab sessions that cover the use of AMBER and AmberTools and the theory behind it. There will be opportunities for discussion with thetutors for advice with specific research problems. List of provisional topics: Introduction to force fields and molecular dynamics. Overview of AMBER and AmberTools and its programs. Introduction to setting up and running simulations. Visualizing AMBER simulations. Overview of AMBER Force Fields / Solvent Models etc. Introduction to implicit solvent and binding energy calculations. Advanced analysis techniques. Designing good simulation projects. Dealing with non-standard residues. What to do if there is no crystal structure. Statistical mechanics for free energy calculations. QM/MM coupled potential simulations. Advanced sampling methods. Lipid bilayer simulations. Parallel and GPU accelerated molecular dynamics simulations. All students will receive a USB pen drive which contains all software and materials used in the workshop. Workshop Instructors: Professor Ross Walker (San Diego Supercomputer Center, UC San Diego, USA) Professor Ian Gould (Department of Chemistry, Imperial College London, UK) Professor Thomas Cheatham (Department of Pharmacology, University of Utah, USA) Target audience: Attendees are expected to be graduate students and postdocs as well as young lecturers who have limited experience in molecular dynamics simulations and/or the AMBER and AmberTools software packages and would benefit from an introductory workshop that also covers advanced topics and the latest features in the AMBER software, including GPU acceleration. The workshop will also be of use to those looking to convert from a different MD simulationpackage such as NAMD, CHARMM, Gromacs or Lammps. Dates of workshop: Mon July 6th to Friday July 10th 2015 Eligibility and Organization: This workshop is open to everyone. The event is organized by the NSCCS at Imperial College, thus any questions may be directed to Dr. Helen Tsui (helen.tsui{=}imperial.ac.uk) and not to the invited speakers/tutors. Registration fee: Registration is free of charge for UK students and academics with the EPSRC covering the workshop costs. Non-academics and non-UK residents will be required to pay a registration fee of 150 GBP to cover costs. Poster Session: Although not mandatory participants are encouraged to bring posters highlighting their work for a poster session that will be held one evening during the workshop. A total of two NVIDIA K40 graphics cards will be given as prize to the best posters. Application deadline: Monday 15th June 2015* *The number of places for this workshop is limited. If there is an unprecedented demand, we may have to restrict the number of people from the same research group. Please note that application may close early if all places have been filled before the deadline. From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Wed Jun 10 15:54:01 2015 From: "Sigge Hermann nsq562:+:alumni.ku.dk" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Protein folding and ASP algorithm development Message-Id: <-51442-150610151925-8804-+cTVjn++Y9EWoRNvyJjFpw===server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Sigge Hermann" Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:19:24 -0400 Sent to CCL by: "Sigge Hermann" [nsq562(a)alumni.ku.dk] Hello everyone! I'm looking for a sparring-partner To help me develop a folding algorithm (thermodynamics based) and a ASP (active site prediction) algorithm as I've Realized that this is just too much for me to handle by my self being a first year student in the field of physics all though I've already developed pretty much of both the algorithms. so! If you share my vision of making cancer, parkinsons and Alzheimers diseases that we just laugh off in the future and eliminating side effects from medication all together, (and turning used toilet paper into fuel for our cars etc.) I mean only the imagination sets the limit to what we can do once we have this folding algorithm and ASP algorithm. if you are up to the task then please give me a dolla (hehe just kidding) I meant an e-mail Best! Sigge Hermann. You can reach me at nsq562^_^alumni.ku.dk if I have captivated your imagination P.s. This is an unpaid position except from you get to use the results + you decide whether or not the results should be published! (and therefore not a job announcement) PPS. As the aim of this project is only to develop the algorithms in math form then no programming experience is neccessary however it would be a huge plus if you have programming skills.