crazy Mulliken charge


Just Got Here
Dear everyone,

I am getting a crazy Mulliken charge out of a DFT calculation.
The system is a neutrally charged combination of two oppositely charged ions (EMIM-BF4).
Energies looks alright, I have compared to other results.
Nonetheless, the sum of the total charge is of 120!! which is clearly a nonsense, even for Mulliken charge.

What can I do to improve these results?
Below you can find the result and attached the input file used to produce it.

File:///C:/Users/MDI0316/Desktop/emim bf4.nw (hope this link works )

Thank you,
Marco

     Total Density - Mulliken Population Analysis
---------------------------------------------

   Atom       Charge   Shell Charges
----------- ------ -------------------------------------------------------
1 C 6 6.07 1.10 0.88 0.65 0.79 1.52 0.36 0.68 0.09
2 C 6 6.06 1.10 0.88 0.65 0.79 1.52 0.35 0.68 0.09
3 N 7 7.25 1.10 0.89 0.80 0.88 1.82 0.61 1.11 0.05
4 N 7 7.26 1.10 0.89 0.81 0.87 1.82 0.62 1.11 0.05
5 C 6 5.83 1.10 0.88 0.65 0.79 1.50 0.28 0.52 0.11
6 C 6 6.50 1.10 0.88 0.64 0.78 1.61 0.52 0.85 0.10
7 H 1 0.74 0.28 0.39 0.07
8 H 1 0.75 0.28 0.39 0.08
9 H 1 0.72 0.28 0.38 0.06
10 C 6 6.33 1.10 0.88 0.63 0.78 1.56 0.50 0.78 0.10
11 H 1 0.71 0.27 0.38 0.06
12 H 1 0.72 0.27 0.39 0.06
13 H 1 0.72 0.27 0.38 0.06
14 C 6 6.58 1.10 0.88 0.65 0.77 1.62 0.56 0.93 0.08
15 H 1 0.75 0.28 0.39 0.08
16 H 1 0.74 0.28 0.39 0.08
17 H 1 0.76 0.28 0.39 0.09
18 H 1 0.75 0.28 0.39 0.09
19 H 1 0.76 0.28 0.39 0.09
20 B 5 4.45 1.13 0.85 0.46 0.56 0.85 -0.02 0.34 0.29
21 F 9 9.38 1.08 0.91 1.20 1.09 2.33 0.86 1.93 -0.02
22 F 9 9.41 1.08 0.91 1.20 1.09 2.33 0.87 1.96 -0.02
23 F 9 9.38 1.08 0.91 1.20 1.09 2.33 0.86 1.93 -0.02
24 F 9 9.38 1.08 0.91 1.20 1.09 2.33 0.86 1.93 -0.02


Marco Di Gennaro
Toyota Motor Europe



Forum Vet
Marco
Unfortunately your input file is not accessible since the link points to a directory on your PC.
However,
the Mulliken table your report seems fine: total number of electron is 102 (correct for C6H11BF4N2) and sum of Mulliken charges is 102 as expected ..

Just Got Here
Dear Edoapra,
of course, subtracting the atomic number from the previous result gives what I was looking for.
Thank you


Forum >> NWChem's corner >> General Topics