Re: CCL:Second negative frequency

Of course there is the possibility that it is real.  I haven't looked at
 the molecule under discussion but many molecules have internal rotation
 degrees of freedom, or other degrees of freedom in which the potential
 energy surface is very flat.  In those cases, it can be very difficult to
 locate the minimum of the PES in that coordinate.  Another possibility is
 that the symmetry that the calculation is being carried out in may be too
 high to allow a true minimum to be reached.  Perhaps the symmetry needs to
 be relaxed.
 Best regards,
 Sam Abrash
 At 11:44 AM 02/13/2001 +0100, Dr. Peter Burger wrote:
 >Good point,
 >
 >however, what are you going to do about it? I spent alot computer time
 >in reoptimizing using the calculated hessian / recalculating the second
 >derivatives (sometimes several times) and had the excact same question.
 >I analyzed these low frequencies and in my case quite often these were
 >just rotations of methyl groups etc. in the peripheral positions, while
 >the larger imaginary frequency was corresponding to the TS.
 >
 >Anyways, this made me wonder how this is handled
 >in publications. Are these sometimes small frequencies
 >sometimes ignored? Will this be always mentioned
 >in the paper, would the referees accept additional imaginary
 >frequencies if they had been analyzed thoroughly?
 >
 > Sorry, for this question I do not want to
 >blame anyone - but being originally  not trained
 >as an theoretical chemist, I am just curious.  So far,
 >I was lucky to get rid of all additional negative frequencies,
 >by reoptimization, but considering the usual error bars of these
 >frequencies as mentioned in the last post and the size of some of my
 >systems (DFT on 50-130 atoms with numerical second derivatives by finite
 >difference), I could be tempted to just mention in the paper that
 >that there is a residual small imaginary frequency, which I
 >cannot get rid of with reasonable computational effort, e.g. redo the
 >force calculation a third or forth time.
 >
 >Any comments?
 >
 >Peter
 >
 >> Your second value (36 cm-1) could easily be positive given the error
 >> associated with normal mode calculations (+/-50 cm-1 or so). Perhaps
 >> you have only one imaginary frequency ...
 >
 >
 >-= This is automatically added to each message by mailing script =-
 >CHEMISTRY &$at$& ccl.net -- To Everybody  | CHEMISTRY-REQUEST &$at$& ccl.net
 -- To Admins
 >MAILSERV &$at$& ccl.net -- HELP CHEMISTRY or HELP SEARCH
 >CHEMISTRY-SEARCH &$at$& ccl.net -- archive search    |    Gopher:
 gopher.ccl.net 70
 >Ftp: ftp.ccl.net  |  WWW: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/   | Jan: jkl &$at$& ccl.net
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 Samuel A. Abrash
 Associate Professor
 Department of Chemistry
 University of Richmond
 Richmond, VA 23173
 Phone: (804) 289-8248
 Fax: (804) 287-1897
 E-mail: sabrash &$at$& richmond.edu
 http://www.richmond.edu/~sabrash
 "The time it takes to complete a scientific project is given by the
 equation t = 2a + b, where a is the original estimate, 2 is a correction
 factor, and b is a number large compared to 2a."