Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Should cell_charge and cell_magmom be mutually exclusive with the site-wise counterparts? #41

Open
mikibonacci opened this issue Sep 15, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Should cell_charge and cell_magmom be mutually exclusive with the site-wise counterparts? #41

mikibonacci opened this issue Sep 15, 2024 · 0 comments
Assignees
@mikibonacci
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@mikibonacci
Copy link
Collaborator

mikibonacci commented Sep 15, 2024 •
edited
Loading

we have cell_charge and cell_magmom, which defines the tot_charge and tot_magnetization of the unit cell.

For now, these are not mutually exclusive with the site-wise defined charges and magmoms.
The question is: should they be not mutually exclusive, and leave the issue to plugins?
@mikibonacci mikibonacci added the question Further information is requested label Sep 15, 2024
@mikibonacci mikibonacci removed the question Further information is requested label Oct 10, 2024
@mikibonacci mikibonacci self-assigned this Oct 10, 2024
@mikibonacci mikibonacci added the question Further information is requested label Nov 21, 2024
@mikibonacci mikibonacci changed the title Should tot_magnetization and tot_charge be properties of the structure? Should cell_charge and cell_magmom be mutually exclusive with the site-wise counterparts? Nov 21, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@mikibonacci mikibonacci

Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@mikibonacci