CompuServe Thread

#New Minimizers?

4 messages in this thread
#21382From: John HubbsAug 12, 1992 6:13 PM
I view one of the strongest features of Hyperchem to be the use of minimally modified 'public domain' (academic) minimizers. This is because there is a wealth of information available on the strengths and weaknesses for each minimizer. It is in this context that I inquire about future minimizers which may be included in Hyperchem. The obvious class of minimizers which have not yet been addressed are ab initio calculations. I personally would be interested in carrying out some ab initio calculations on some simple systems, particularly as computing power improves in the next few years (SGI workstations, 686/200 Hz or whatever they chose to call it). As I understand it, porting ab initio packages is no trivial matter and those currently using ab initio packages may well prefer to use existing large computer systems. I would be interested in hearing other opinions as to what the market might be. My selfish interest is to see such packages offered in an accessible and user frinedly environment such as Hyperchem. As the tools of computational chemists loose the requirement for the user to be both a mathmatician and a computer programmer, organic chemists will begin to use these tools by formulating questions and problems in the language of organic chemistry.
#21389From: Richard HongAug 12, 1992 7:05 PM
John, I'm not familiar with ab initio stuff. Is it all proprietary commercial stuff, or are there decent public (academic) programs in this class as well? And how much computing power are people throwing at these problems; is this "two days on a Cray" type of work? Rich
#21513From: Tom Slee [Hypercube]Aug 14, 1992 8:44 AM
Richard, I don't think I can really say anything about the new types of computational methds we will have in the coming releases: partly because stuff for the next release has to wait for formal announcments and partly because we haven't made the decisions yet for further down the road. I can, however, add a few things about ab initio codes. The major programs are university-written. The biggest player is Gaussian, (John Pople's group at Carnegie Mellon) whose Gaussian92 (current version) is probably the most sophisticated code around for ab initio calculations. It does a remarkable range of different types of calculation. It is cheap (but not free) to academics and I believe less cheap to industrial users. It is text-input based, although some people have a graphical front end to it for a large amount of money. GAMESS (pronounced Games) comes from north Dakota State University, and is free but not public domain, I think. Functionality is similar to Gaussian but not so extensive, and usability is harder. CADPAC from Cambridge University has its own strengths and weaknesses compared to Gaussian, but I don't know its pricing (if any). The only commercially-written ab initio program I am aware of is Spartan, from Wavefunction Inc.. It has a subset of the capabilities of Gaussian and co, but does have a strong graphical component to it. Some of the ab initio stuff does require Craydays. More and more calculations, however, are becoming as routine as semi-empirical and not too much more expensive in terms of time (but still some). It is a bit like molecular dynamics: you can do useful stuff in short times on small machines, but there will always be some people who want to do massive calculations and spend massive amounts of money. Tom
#21584From: Richard HongAug 15, 1992 2:22 PM
>> but there will always be some people who want to do massive calculations and spend massive amounts of money Tom, And there will always be salesmen to help them <g>. The only folks I was familiar with were the Gaussian people, and I have to admit that the one contact I ever had with them was less than gratifying. I had to call them for some reason, and whoever it was a talked to (he was one of the higher-ranking geeks, supposedly) copped a truly superior 'tude, so I could live without 'em… So based on that 5 minute encounter (okay, so I don't believe in reasonable sample sizes <g>), I hope y'all smoke 'em in a future release. Rich