Hi Eugenio, I would call all of the spectra that you sent converged. It is true that they are not the same to all digits of output, but you really don't need things to be that accurate. Theoretical and experimental errors are much larger, especially in the near edge. When converging w.r.t. the SCF and FMS radius, you really only need to be sure that changes in the spectrum due to finite cluster size are small compared to the differences between theory and experiment. You can probably get by with a much smaller cluster even. Cheers, Josh Kas On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, ifeffit-request@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov wrote:

Send Ifeffit mailing list submissions to ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ifeffit-request@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov

You can reach the person managing the list at ifeffit-owner@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ifeffit digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. SCF and FMS radius (Bruce Ravel, Feng Wang & Josh Kas) (Eugenio Otal)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:40:07 -0200 From: "Eugenio Otal" Subject: [Ifeffit] SCF and FMS radius (Bruce Ravel, Feng Wang & Josh Kas) To: ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi Bruce, Feng and Josh, I am simulating erbium hydroxide from its crystal structure information, what does really mean well ordered? Of course I can?t answer you that, I hope someday would know the answer, and for the dummies question... I see the changes only close to the edge. I?ll read the paper deeply , and what I see in the abstract, the SCF and FMS should converge faster. I attach 3 packages with 3 results and its .inp files, I hope you can help me. Thanks in advance, euG