-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 229
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Resonance structure generation is creating radical catalyst surface sites #1820
Comments
The previous species added to the core was
so it's quite likely that this lost an H forming
as hypothesized above |
I tried just making it so that the action items That seemed to solve things and the job ran for further, but about 20 species later, it crashed with
I guess there's now a species where some resonance structures have radicals (on the adsorbate) and some do not (because the unpaired electron was transferred to the metal, then disappeared). There's a check when making a new So either...
To be honest, I'm not very confident about radical adsorbates. |
Some initial thoughts:
|
…multiplicity. When a metal surface is involved, your adsorbate may have different multiplicity in different resonance forms because you may hybridize a radical onto the metal where it "disappears". It is an attempt to address ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
I permitted the different resonance structures of an adsorbate to have different multiplicities in rwest@d33df77 |
This may hide bugs, or it may be exactly the right thing to do. I'm not entirely sure. But it currently seems like a good idea. The presumption is: surface sites of metals should not have unpaired or pairs of electrons - they just have a big sea of delocalized electrons at their disposal. See #1820
…multiplicity. When a metal surface is involved, your adsorbate may have different multiplicity in different resonance forms because you may hybridize a radical onto the metal where it "disappears". It is an attempt to address #1820
This may hide bugs, or it may be exactly the right thing to do. I'm not entirely sure. But it currently seems like a good idea. The presumption is: surface sites of metals should not have unpaired or pairs of electrons - they just have a big sea of delocalized electrons at their disposal. See #1820
…multiplicity. When a metal surface is involved, your adsorbate may have different multiplicity in different resonance forms because you may hybridize a radical onto the metal where it "disappears". It is an attempt to address #1820
This may hide bugs, or it may be exactly the right thing to do. I'm not entirely sure. But it currently seems like a good idea. The presumption is: surface sites of metals should not have unpaired or pairs of electrons - they just have a big sea of delocalized electrons at their disposal. See #1820
…multiplicity. When a metal surface is involved, your adsorbate may have different multiplicity in different resonance forms because you may hybridize a radical onto the metal where it "disappears". It is an attempt to address #1820
This may hide bugs, or it may be exactly the right thing to do. I'm not entirely sure. But it currently seems like a good idea. The presumption is: surface sites of metals should not have unpaired or pairs of electrons - they just have a big sea of delocalized electrons at their disposal. See ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
…multiplicity. When a metal surface is involved, your adsorbate may have different multiplicity in different resonance forms because you may hybridize a radical onto the metal where it "disappears". It is an attempt to address ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
This may hide bugs, or it may be exactly the right thing to do. I'm not entirely sure. But it currently seems like a good idea. The presumption is: surface sites of metals should not have unpaired or pairs of electrons - they just have a big sea of delocalized electrons at their disposal. See ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
…multiplicity. When a metal surface is involved, your adsorbate may have different multiplicity in different resonance forms because you may hybridize a radical onto the metal where it "disappears". It is an attempt to address ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
This may hide bugs, or it may be exactly the right thing to do. I'm not entirely sure. But it currently seems like a good idea. The presumption is: surface sites of metals should not have unpaired or pairs of electrons - they just have a big sea of delocalized electrons at their disposal. See #1820
…multiplicity. When a metal surface is involved, your adsorbate may have different multiplicity in different resonance forms because you may hybridize a radical onto the metal where it "disappears". It is an attempt to address #1820
This may hide bugs, or it may be exactly the right thing to do. I'm not entirely sure. But it currently seems like a good idea. The presumption is: surface sites of metals should not have unpaired or pairs of electrons - they just have a big sea of delocalized electrons at their disposal. See #1820
…multiplicity. When a metal surface is involved, your adsorbate may have different multiplicity in different resonance forms because you may hybridize a radical onto the metal where it "disappears". It is an attempt to address #1820
This may hide bugs, or it may be exactly the right thing to do. I'm not entirely sure. But it currently seems like a good idea. The presumption is: surface sites of metals should not have unpaired or pairs of electrons - they just have a big sea of delocalized electrons at their disposal. See ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
…multiplicity. When a metal surface is involved, your adsorbate may have different multiplicity in different resonance forms because you may hybridize a radical onto the metal where it "disappears". It is an attempt to address ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
This may hide bugs, or it may be exactly the right thing to do. I'm not entirely sure. But it currently seems like a good idea. The presumption is: surface sites of metals should not have unpaired or pairs of electrons - they just have a big sea of delocalized electrons at their disposal. See #1820
…multiplicity. When a metal surface is involved, your adsorbate may have different multiplicity in different resonance forms because you may hybridize a radical onto the metal where it "disappears". It is an attempt to address #1820
This may hide bugs, or it may be exactly the right thing to do. I'm not entirely sure. But it currently seems like a good idea. The presumption is: surface sites of metals should not have unpaired or pairs of electrons - they just have a big sea of delocalized electrons at their disposal. See ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
…multiplicity. When a metal surface is involved, your adsorbate may have different multiplicity in different resonance forms because you may hybridize a radical onto the metal where it "disappears". It is an attempt to address ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
This may hide bugs, or it may be exactly the right thing to do. I'm not entirely sure. But it currently seems like a good idea. The presumption is: surface sites of metals should not have unpaired or pairs of electrons - they just have a big sea of delocalized electrons at their disposal. See ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
…multiplicity. When a metal surface is involved, your adsorbate may have different multiplicity in different resonance forms because you may hybridize a radical onto the metal where it "disappears". It is an attempt to address ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
This may hide bugs, or it may be exactly the right thing to do. I'm not entirely sure. But it currently seems like a good idea. The presumption is: surface sites of metals should not have unpaired or pairs of electrons - they just have a big sea of delocalized electrons at their disposal. See ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
…multiplicity. When a metal surface is involved, your adsorbate may have different multiplicity in different resonance forms because you may hybridize a radical onto the metal where it "disappears". It is an attempt to address ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
This may hide bugs, or it may be exactly the right thing to do. I'm not entirely sure. But it currently seems like a good idea. The presumption is: surface sites of metals should not have unpaired or pairs of electrons - they just have a big sea of delocalized electrons at their disposal. See ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
…multiplicity. When a metal surface is involved, your adsorbate may have different multiplicity in different resonance forms because you may hybridize a radical onto the metal where it "disappears". It is an attempt to address ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
This may hide bugs, or it may be exactly the right thing to do. I'm not entirely sure. But it currently seems like a good idea. The presumption is: surface sites of metals should not have unpaired or pairs of electrons - they just have a big sea of delocalized electrons at their disposal. See ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
…multiplicity. When a metal surface is involved, your adsorbate may have different multiplicity in different resonance forms because you may hybridize a radical onto the metal where it "disappears". It is an attempt to address ReactionMechanismGenerator#1820
This may hide bugs, or it may be exactly the right thing to do. I'm not entirely sure. But it currently seems like a good idea. The presumption is: surface sites of metals should not have unpaired or pairs of electrons - they just have a big sea of delocalized electrons at their disposal. See #1820
…multiplicity. When a metal surface is involved, your adsorbate may have different multiplicity in different resonance forms because you may hybridize a radical onto the metal where it "disappears". It is an attempt to address #1820
This issue is being automatically marked as stale because it has not received any interaction in the last 90 days. Please leave a comment if this is still a relevant issue, otherwise it will automatically be closed in 30 days. |
Bug Description
See cfgoldsmith#70 for further history, consequences, and debugging efforts, but the tl;dr:
rmgpy.molecule.resonance.generate_allyl_delocalization_resonance_structures
is creating surface site atoms (elementX
) with radical electrons. These then can't be found in the adsorption thermo database, because surface sites (of a metal) shouldn't have unpaired electrons.I'm not yet sure how best to address this.
update_atomtypes
raise anAtomTypeError
if there's a radical on anX
?Any suggestions?
How To Reproduce
Put an
assert not self.is_surface_site()
inAtom.increment_radical
. (eg. rwest@b6b8751 )then build a model with heterogeneous catalysis.
For me the resonance structure that causes the problem is
*N=O
though I'm not sure what the form was before this structure was generated.
Presumably it was something like...
??
Expected Behavior
It wouldn't make radical metals and, more importantly, wouldn't crash.
Installation Information
Describe your installation method and system information.
Additional Context
Another observation, perhaps related, is that for many (perhaps all?) recent runs with catalysis, a large fraction of the overall CPU time is spent on resonance structure generation (see cfgoldsmith#69 (comment) ). This may be just that we're making molecules with many resonance structures (as discussed in that thread), but it struck me that perhaps the resonance structure algorithms perform poorly for adsorbates. This may be a red herring though.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: