From chemistry-request |-at-| server.ccl.net Sat May 18 22:22:39 2002
Received: from chemistry.ohio-state.edu ([128.146.235.235])
	by server.ccl.net (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g4J2Md114157
	for <chemistry -A_T- ccl.net>; Sat, 18 May 2002 22:22:39 -0400
Received: from chemistry.ohio-state.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by chemistry.ohio-state.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g4J2MaV1012584;
	Sat, 18 May 2002 22:22:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (rbsunoj |-at-| localhost)
	by chemistry.ohio-state.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id g4J2MaxZ012580;
	Sat, 18 May 2002 22:22:36 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 22:22:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Raghavan B. Sunoj" <rbsunoj /at\chemistry.ohio-state.edu>
To: chemistry #at# ccl.net
cc: rbsunoj#* at *#hotmail.com
Subject: Orbital switching 
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.43.0205182217020.12051-100000%!at!%chemistry.ohio-state.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> How can one achieve the best control over the electronic state of a
> molecule (within Gaussian program)?.
>
> When the orbital switching fails to give the correct state [instead it
> collapse to the lowest energy state during geometry optimization], what
one can
do
> about it?.

Also, which are the recommended method for excited state calculations
(I am interested in the excited state geometry).

>
> Thank you
>
> Sunoj
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>