#test silicon linear chain and finite oscillating electric field
 ndtset 5

 getwfk1   0
  nstep1   30

 qprtrb2   0 0 1
 vprtrb2 100.0   0.0

 qprtrb3   0 0 1
 vprtrb3  10.0   0.0

 qprtrb4   0 0 1
 vprtrb4   1.0   0.0

 qprtrb5   0 0 1
 vprtrb5 -10.0   0.0

#Common data
 acell   2*10.00  50.00
 diecut 1.20
 dielam 0.5
 diegap 0.2
 ecut  2.00
 getwfk 1
 iprcel 45
 ixc 3
 kptopt 0

 kpt
   0.00000   0.00000   0.500
 natom  8 nband 16
 ngfft  2*16 64  nkpt  1
 nstep 15
 nsym   1 ntypat  1
 occopt 1
 rprim   1.0  0.0  0.0
         0.0  1.0  0.0
         0.0  0.0  1.0
 symrel  1  0  0   0  1  0   0  0  1
 xred    0.0  0.0  0.0
         0.0  0.0  0.05
         0.0  0.0  0.25
         0.0  0.0  0.30
         0.0  0.0  0.50
         0.0  0.0  0.55
         0.0  0.0  0.75
         0.0  0.0  0.80
 tnons 3*0.0
 typat  8*1
 tolwfr  1.e-22
 wtk 1
 znucl  14

 pp_dirpath "$ABI_PSPDIR"
 pseudos "14si.Hamann_mod"

#%%<BEGIN TEST_INFO>
#%% [setup]
#%% executable = abinit
#%% [files]
#%% files_to_test = 
#%%   t01.out, tolnlines = 2, tolabs = 1e-8, tolrel = 1e-3
#%% [paral_info]
#%% max_nprocs = 1
#%% [extra_info]
#%% authors = Unknown
#%% keywords = 
#%% description = 
#%%  Chain of Silicon diatomic molecules (4 Si2 molecules in the cell)
#%%  Freeze oscillatory perturbations with different wavelengths and intensities,
#%%  thanks to the qprtrb and vprtrb input variables.
#%%  This should be linked with the computation of the dielectric constant,
#%%  test v2#05, that uses directly the RF capabilities of ABINIT,
#%%  for one diatomic molecule.
#%%  For dataset 1, one reproduces the results obtained in Tv2#05, multiplied by 4.
#%%  The total energy is consistent up to more than 10 digits :
#%%  -6.6499924738006 Ha for Tv2#05, -26.599969895203 Ha for the present calculation.
#%%  For dataset 2, the perturbation qprtrb 0 0 1 is frozen in, with vprtrb 100.
#%%  The total energy is -26.600317638775 Ha. The difference wrt the unperturbed situation is
#%%  0.000348743572 Ha.
#%%  For dataset 3, a much smaller perturbation (10 times smaller) is taken,
#%%  giving total energy -26.599973367786 Ha. The difference wrt the unperturbed situation is
#%%  0.3472583 microHa.
#%%  For dataset 4, an even smaller perturbation (100 times smaller) is taken,
#%%  giving total energy -26.599969929928 Ha. The difference wrt the unperturbed situation is
#%%  0.000034725 microHa. With datasets 3 and 4, we are in the linear regime.
#%%  The previous amplitude is better for such studies.
#%%  Dataset 5 is the same as 3, with reversed amplitude. Results are similar to dataset 3.
#%%  I had no sufficient time to analyze these data correctly and make the connection with the
#%%  results of Tv2#05, unfortunately. The following (also test 02 below) gives some more data, and raise questions.
#%%  There might be some problem with the use of qprtrb and vprtrb.
#%%  For dataset 2, the group of the four lowest eigenenergies (each corresponding to a different molecule) is :
#%%  -0.47198  -0.46381  -0.46091  -0.45266 , whose spread is 0.01932 Ha.
#%%  One might think that the maximum and minimum of the potential are separated roughly by 0.02 Ha.
#%%  The value vprtrb 100 corresponds to a cosine wave whose amplitude is 100, divided by the volume
#%%  of the cell, that is 5000 Bohr^3 : 0.02 Ha. The maximum
#%%  and minimum of the potential should thus be separated by 0.04 Ha. There seems to be a factor of 2 off.
#%%<END TEST_INFO>