Hybrid pair coefficient error Incorrect args for pair coefficients (…/pair_lj_cut.cpp:471)

LAMMPS LAMMPS Beginners
1

Dear LAMMPS users,

Im doing a calculation in LAMMPS to find the mean square displacement of Iodine molecules through Aluminosilicates at a constant temperature of 75°C.
The structure of this composite is attached (aluminosilicatewithI.dat - Google Drive).
During the calculation aluminosilicates are frozen.
Im using a hybrid pair coefficient, a mixture of ClayFF Force field ( Buckingham PP) and LJ potential.
Here Clay FF is used for aluminosilicate and LJ potential is for Iodine.
Im herewith attaching the input file for this simulation (in.aluminosilicatewithI - Google Drive)
The problem is that Im getting the following error
“Incorrect args for pair coefficients (…/pair_lj_cut.cpp:471)”.
What could be the problem with this hybrid pair coefficient?

Thank you

2

When reporting errors, please always report which LAMMPS version you are using and on what platform you are running.

This kind of error means that there is a syntax error in your input and that your input does not conform with the documentation.

4

Before posting any more messages, you urgently need to study the forum guidelines posted here: Please Read This First: Guidelines and Suggestions for posting LAMMPS questions

Your first post didn’t follow the guideline to mention the LAMMPS version and platform (you only provided the version not the platform in your followup).
Now, you are not correctly quoting from an input file (does the quoted input read correctly for you??) and are reporting an error with a (very) old LAMMPS version without confirming that the issue still exists with a current version of LAMMPS.

Please note, that if you do not follow the guidelines, people may overlook the first or second time, but soon your posts will be ignored.

Please note that nobody will spend any effort to debug a problem with a 4 1/2 year old LAMMPS version.

This is a wild guess (not going to spend more effort on this unless you follow the forum guidelines more closely), but shouldn’t the smaller type always be listed first?