|
---|
The TM complexes won’t run through QCSubmit because neither toolkit is reliable. We can easily bypass validation, and I think we can alter the GitHub Actions LifeCycle to avoid QCSubmit easily. If we import QCFractal datasets as sqlite files instead of QCSubmit, it should be straightforward to make this change. This seems to be the favored option See notes We will put scaffold.py in the QDS PR directory for the first PR, and expect it to be integrated into QCF later. We will update the QDS CI to look for “scaffold.json” for error cycling now, and adapt the submission lifecycle later. |
Made a draft of the TM PR Version is None? Since we don’t have high confidence in the CMILES strings I don’t think we can say that it follows any of our standards strictly. I could call it v~4.0, but I elected for vNone. LW: also want to check on 136 conformers for 137 molecules; typo or one molecule has no geometry?
|
Chris' HDF5 is available, I’ll put functions to go from/to HDF5 into qcportal scaffold.py. There are 200K “primary” TM Complexes |
SBIR Update: I spoke with my colleague at a small company that scales up promising research to industry scale processes. They haven’t worked with simulation folks, so it would take some convincing The focus on CO2 capture or hydrogen production, mostly reaction reliant processes
He is now at Eastman chemical and offered to ask around about interest. I need to draft an email to him but wanted to discuss, didn’t want to step on the toes of other polymer initiatives. I’ve worked with Eastman modeling folks in grad-school.
JW: We will get back to you. |
Conferences: JC will followup with how much she has spent, and estimated cost for each of these. |