[gmx-users] Re: angle constraints

2012-07-26 Thread Thomas Schlesier

Thanks for the clarification.
Forgot that virtual sites have no mass. With this info it is clear why a 
setup with 2 'normal' and one dummy atom would not work.



Am 26.07.2012 01:42, schrieb gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org:

On 26/07/2012 4:12 AM, Broadbent, Richard wrote:

Virtual sites are by definition have no mass.

If you simply ignore the mass of the carbon the molecule will be too light
and its translational momentum will therefore be too small meaning it will
move too quickly.

If you place half the mass of the carbon on each oxygen the moment of
inertia will be wrong and the molecule will spin too slowly.

All correct so far.



In practice you have to decide what you want to loose or if a balance
between the two is better.

Not true, as illustrated by the link I gave earlier in the thread, which
nobody seems to have read/understood.

One needs at least two massive particles to describe the available
degrees of freedom of a linear molecule, and using exactly two
side-steps the angle constraint issue. Each must have half the total
mass of CO2 and the distance between them is chosen to reproduce the
moment of inertia. These will not be in suitable positions to have
non-bonded interactions, of course. Then three (massless) virtual sites
are constructed from those two, and these are the only ones that have
the non-bonded interactions.



Richard


On 25/07/2012 14:44, Thomas Schlesierschl...@uni-mainz.de  wrote:


Ok, read the topic about the acetonitril. But i'm somewhat clueless:

Why is the following setup wrong:
Use 2 particles as normal atoms. Put the third as a dummy in between.
Give each particle its 'normal' mass?
I would assume that this system should have the right mass and moment of
inertia, due to the fact the all individual masses and the positions one
the particles would be correct.

The virtual site so constructed cannot have mass, so this cannot be an
accurate model.



Only idea i have, why this setup could be flawed, would be that the
third particle does only interact indirectly through the other two
particles (i mean, virtual site interacts normally with all othe
particles, but the force which would act on the dummy get redistributed
to the other particles)... and then it's mass does not come into play,
since it new position is determined only by the other two particles. so
the complete molecule would move with a reduced mass?!?

Still not an accurate model - you'd have a CO2 with three sites and mass
only at two of the sites, so either the mass or moment of intertia must
be wrong.

Mark



Can anyone comment on this?

greetings
thomas


On 25/07/2012 10:08 PM, Thomas Schlesier wrote:

What you have done there looks very strange...
easiest wy would be:
define the two oxygens as normal atoms (1,2), give them a bondlength
twotimes the C-O bond length
define the carbon as a dummy (3), while you construct it's position
from both oxygens with a=0.5
one thing i don't know is how to handle the mass:
1) give both oxygen half of the system mass
2) give all atoms their normal mass
would tend to (2)

One should want to get both the total mass and the moment of inertia
correct...
http://lists.gromacs.org/pipermail/gmx-users/2003-September/007095.html.

Mark


greetings
thomas

Am 25.07.2012 13:15, schrieb gmx-users-request at gromacs.org:

How to choose the positions of the dummy atoms while constraining the
angle for a linear triatomic molecule?
The topology for a such molecule ( af for example CO2 ) is as follows

[ moleculetype ]
; Namenrexcl
CO2  2

[ atoms ]
;   nr   type  resnr residue  atom   cgnr charge mass
typeBchargeB  massB
; residue 503 CO  rtp CO   q  0.0
1 D1503 CO D1  1  0 21.90158
 ; qtot 0
2 D2503 CO D2  2  0 21.90158
 ; qtot 0
3 CE503 CO CO  30.7 0.0
 ; qtot 0.7
4 OE503 COOC1  4  -0.35 0.0
 ; qtot 0.35
5 OE503 COOC2  5  -0.35 0.0
 ; qtot 0.35
[ constraints ]
;  ai  aj funct   b0
1 2 1   0.2000

[ dummies2 ]
;  aiajak   funct   a
   3 1 2   1   0.0170
   4 1 2   1   0.1000
   5 1 2   1   0.2170


[ exclusions ]
3 4 5
4 5 3
5 4 3



The .rtp file for CO2

[ CO ]
[ atoms ]
   D1 D1  0.   1
   D2 D2  0.   2
   COCE  0.70003
   OC1  OE -0.3500   4
   OC2  OE -0.35005
[ bonds ]
   CO  OC1
   CO  OC2


Can anyone please check above file parts whether I'm doing correct or
not ?


--
gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org
http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
* Only plain text messages are allowed!
* Please search the archive at 
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before 

[gmx-users] Re: angle constraints

2012-07-25 Thread Thomas Schlesier

What you have done there looks very strange...
easiest wy would be:
define the two oxygens as normal atoms (1,2), give them a bondlength 
twotimes the C-O bond length
define the carbon as a dummy (3), while you construct it's position from 
both oxygens with a=0.5

one thing i don't know is how to handle the mass:
1) give both oxygen half of the system mass
2) give all atoms their normal mass
would tend to (2)

greetings
thomas

Am 25.07.2012 13:15, schrieb gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org:

How to choose the positions of the dummy atoms while constraining the
angle for a linear triatomic molecule?
The topology for a such molecule ( af for example CO2 ) is as follows

[ moleculetype ]
; Namenrexcl
CO2  2

[ atoms ]
;   nr   type  resnr residue  atom   cgnr charge   mass
typeBchargeB  massB
; residue 503 CO  rtp CO   q  0.0
  1 D1503 CO D1  1  0  21.90158
   ; qtot 0
  2 D2503 CO D2  2  0  21.90158
   ; qtot 0
  3 CE503 CO CO  30.7   0.0
   ; qtot 0.7
  4 OE503 COOC1  4  -0.35   0.0
   ; qtot 0.35
  5 OE503 COOC2  5  -0.35   0.0
   ; qtot 0.35
[ constraints ]
;  ai  aj funct   b0
1 2 1   0.2000

[ dummies2 ]
;  aiajak   funct   a
 3 1 2   1   0.0170
 4 1 2   1   0.1000
 5 1 2   1   0.2170


[ exclusions ]
3 4 5
4 5 3
5 4 3



The .rtp file for CO2

[ CO ]
  [ atoms ]
 D1 D1  0.   1
 D2 D2  0.   2
 COCE  0.7000   3   
 OC1  OE -0.35004   
 OC2  OE -0.35005   
  [ bonds ]
 CO   OC1
 CO   OC2


Can anyone please check above file parts whether I'm doing correct or not ?


--
gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org
http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
* Only plain text messages are allowed!
* Please search the archive at 
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before posting!
* Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the 
www interface or send it to gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.

* Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists


Re: [gmx-users] Re: angle constraints

2012-07-25 Thread Mark Abraham

On 25/07/2012 10:08 PM, Thomas Schlesier wrote:

What you have done there looks very strange...
easiest wy would be:
define the two oxygens as normal atoms (1,2), give them a bondlength 
twotimes the C-O bond length
define the carbon as a dummy (3), while you construct it's position 
from both oxygens with a=0.5

one thing i don't know is how to handle the mass:
1) give both oxygen half of the system mass
2) give all atoms their normal mass
would tend to (2)


One should want to get both the total mass and the moment of inertia 
correct... 
http://lists.gromacs.org/pipermail/gmx-users/2003-September/007095.html.


Mark



greetings
thomas

Am 25.07.2012 13:15, schrieb gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org:

How to choose the positions of the dummy atoms while constraining the
angle for a linear triatomic molecule?
The topology for a such molecule ( af for example CO2 ) is as follows

[ moleculetype ]
; Namenrexcl
CO2  2

[ atoms ]
;   nr   type  resnr residue  atom   cgnr charge mass
typeBchargeB  massB
; residue 503 CO  rtp CO   q  0.0
  1 D1503 CO D1  1  0 21.90158
   ; qtot 0
  2 D2503 CO D2  2  0 21.90158
   ; qtot 0
  3 CE503 CO CO  30.7 0.0
   ; qtot 0.7
  4 OE503 COOC1  4  -0.35 0.0
   ; qtot 0.35
  5 OE503 COOC2  5  -0.35 0.0
   ; qtot 0.35
[ constraints ]
;  ai  aj funct   b0
1 2 1   0.2000

[ dummies2 ]
;  aiajak   funct   a
 3 1 2   1   0.0170
 4 1 2   1   0.1000
 5 1 2   1   0.2170


[ exclusions ]
3 4 5
4 5 3
5 4 3



The .rtp file for CO2

[ CO ]
  [ atoms ]
 D1 D1  0.   1
 D2 D2  0.   2
 COCE  0.70003
 OC1  OE -0.3500   4
 OC2  OE -0.35005
  [ bonds ]
 CO  OC1
 CO  OC2


Can anyone please check above file parts whether I'm doing correct or 
not ?




--
gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org
http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
* Only plain text messages are allowed!
* Please search the archive at 
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before posting!
* Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the 
www interface or send it to gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.

* Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists


[gmx-users] Re: angle constraints

2012-07-24 Thread Thomas Schlesier

As others said:
type 2 virtual site
check chapter 4.7 and 5.2.2 in the manual (version 4.5.x).

Greetings
Thomas


Am 24.07.2012 12:00, schrieb gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org:

Sorry I should mention it at the very beginning that I have a linear
molecule and the angle is to be constrained at 180 degree. So what is
the best way of  constraining the angle for the linear molecule ?

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Mark Abrahammark.abra...@anu.edu.au  wrote:

On 24/07/2012 6:07 PM, Broadbent, Richard wrote:


An Angle constraint amounts to fixing a triangle. To do this you need to
constrain the distances between all the atoms as you know the of the bonds
6064, 6063 and 6063, 6065 and the angle between the two bonds it is a
trivial geometry problem calculate the length of the third side of the
triangle (6064,6065). However, as you are attempting to hold these atoms
in
a straight line I would suggest that a type 2 virtual site might
(depending
on your system) be a better idea.



Indeed, a much better idea.

Mark




Richard


On 24/07/2012 07:21, tarak karmakartarak20...@gmail.com  wrote:


Oh ! Thnaks
I saw that table, the angle_restrain option is there but not constraints
.
Anyway if suppose, I fix the distance between the two terminal atoms
of the molecule, the angle will eventually be fixed at a particular
given value. Is that the logic ?
Actually I searched for this problem so many times but didn't get
proper clue; in one of those mails I saw someone has dealt with some
dummy atoms. I could not able to digest that logic.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Mark Abrahammark.abra...@anu.edu.au
wrote:


On 24/07/2012 3:21 PM, tarak karmakar wrote:


Dear All,


I am constraining one angle in my protein sample by incorporating  [
constraints ] block in topology file as


[ constraints ]
;  index1  index2  index3   funct angle
6064 6063 6065 1   180.0

while doing that its showing the following error

Program grompp, VERSION 4.5.5
Source code file: topdirs.c, line: 174

Fatal error:
Invalid constraints type 6065
For more information and tips for troubleshooting, please check the
GROMACS
website athttp://www.gromacs.org/Documentation/Errors



As you will see in table 5.6, this is not a valid option for
[constraints] -
you can only specify bonds. You will need to construct a triangle of
bond
constraints.

Mark




Then I rechecked the angle block, that specific angle is there in that
angle section, part of it as follows
6039  6057  6058 1
6039  6057  6059 1
6058  6057  6059 1
6064  6063  6065 1
6067  6066  6068 1
6067  6066  6069 1
6068  6066  6069 1
6071  6070  6072 1
6071  6070  6073 1
6072  6070  6073 1

[ constraints ]
;  index1  index2  index3   funct angle
6064 6063 6065 1   180.0

[ dihedrals ]
;  aiajakal functc0c1
c2c3c4



--
gmx-users mailing listgmx-us...@gromacs.org
http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
* Only plain text messages are allowed!
* Please search the archive at
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search  before posting!
* Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the www
interface or send it togmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.
* Can't post? Readhttp://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists





--
gmx-users mailing listgmx-us...@gromacs.org
http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
* Only plain text messages are allowed!
* Please search the archive at
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search  before posting!
* Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the www
interface or send it togmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.
* Can't post? Readhttp://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists



-- Tarak Karmakar Molecular Simulation Lab. Chemistry and Physics of
Materials Unit Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research
Jakkur P. O. Bangalore - 560 064 Karnataka, INDIA Ph. (lab) :
+91-80-22082809


--
gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org
http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
* Only plain text messages are allowed!
* Please search the archive at 
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before posting!
* Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the 
www interface or send it to gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.

* Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists


Re: [gmx-users] Re: angle constraints

2012-07-24 Thread tarak karmakar
How to choose the positions of the dummy atoms while constraining the
angle for a linear triatomic molecule?
The topology for a such molecule ( af for example CO2 ) is as follows

[ moleculetype ]
; Namenrexcl
CO2  2

[ atoms ]
;   nr   type  resnr residue  atom   cgnr charge   mass
typeBchargeB  massB
; residue 503 CO  rtp CO   q  0.0
 1 D1503 CO D1  1  0  21.90158
  ; qtot 0
 2 D2503 CO D2  2  0  21.90158
  ; qtot 0
 3 CE503 CO CO  30.7   0.0
  ; qtot 0.7
 4 OE503 COOC1  4  -0.35   0.0
  ; qtot 0.35
 5 OE503 COOC2  5  -0.35   0.0
  ; qtot 0.35
[ constraints ]
;  ai  aj funct   b0
1 2 1   0.2000

[ dummies2 ]
;  aiajak   funct   a
3 1 2   1   0.0170
4 1 2   1   0.1000
5 1 2   1   0.2170


[ exclusions ]
3 4 5
4 5 3
5 4 3



The .rtp file for CO2

[ CO ]
 [ atoms ]
D1 D1  0.   1
D2 D2  0.   2
COCE  0.70003   
OC1  OE -0.3500 4   
OC2  OE -0.3500 5   
 [ bonds ]
COOC1
COOC2


Can anyone please check above file parts whether I'm doing correct or not ?

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Schlesier schl...@uni-mainz.de wrote:
 As others said:
 type 2 virtual site
 check chapter 4.7 and 5.2.2 in the manual (version 4.5.x).

 Greetings
 Thomas


 Am 24.07.2012 12:00, schrieb gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org:

 Sorry I should mention it at the very beginning that I have a linear
 molecule and the angle is to be constrained at 180 degree. So what is
 the best way of  constraining the angle for the linear molecule ?

 On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Mark Abrahammark.abra...@anu.edu.au
 wrote:

 On 24/07/2012 6:07 PM, Broadbent, Richard wrote:

 
 An Angle constraint amounts to fixing a triangle. To do this you need
  to
 constrain the distances between all the atoms as you know the of the
  bonds
 6064, 6063 and 6063, 6065 and the angle between the two bonds it is a
 trivial geometry problem calculate the length of the third side of the
 triangle (6064,6065). However, as you are attempting to hold these
  atoms
 in
 a straight line I would suggest that a type 2 virtual site might
 (depending
 on your system) be a better idea.

 
 
 Indeed, a much better idea.
 
 Mark
 
 

 
 Richard
 
 
 On 24/07/2012 07:21, tarak karmakartarak20...@gmail.com  wrote:
 

 Oh ! Thnaks
 I saw that table, the angle_restrain option is there but not
  constraints
 .
 Anyway if suppose, I fix the distance between the two terminal atoms
 of the molecule, the angle will eventually be fixed at a particular
 given value. Is that the logic ?
 Actually I searched for this problem so many times but didn't get
 proper clue; in one of those mails I saw someone has dealt with some
 dummy atoms. I could not able to digest that logic.
 
 On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Mark
  Abrahammark.abra...@anu.edu.au
 wrote:

 
 On 24/07/2012 3:21 PM, tarak karmakar wrote:

 
 Dear All,
 
 
 I am constraining one angle in my protein sample by
  incorporating  [
 constraints ] block in topology file as
 
 
 [ constraints ]
 ;  index1  index2  index3   funct angle
 6064 6063 6065 1   180.0
 
 while doing that its showing the following error
 
 Program grompp, VERSION 4.5.5
 Source code file: topdirs.c, line: 174
 
 Fatal error:
 Invalid constraints type 6065
 For more information and tips for troubleshooting, please check
  the
 GROMACS
 website athttp://www.gromacs.org/Documentation/Errors

 
 
 As you will see in table 5.6, this is not a valid option for
 [constraints] -
 you can only specify bonds. You will need to construct a triangle
  of
 bond
 constraints.
 
 Mark
 
 

 
 Then I rechecked the angle block, that specific angle is there
  in that
 angle section, part of it as follows
 6039  6057  6058 1
 6039  6057  6059 1
 6058  6057  6059 1
 6064  6063  6065 1
 6067  6066  6068 1
 6067  6066  6069 1
 6068  6066  6069 1
 6071  6070  6072 1
 6071  6070  6073 1
 6072  6070  6073 1
 
 [ constraints ]
 ;  index1  index2  index3   funct angle
 6064 6063 6065 1   180.0
 
 [ dihedrals ]
 ;  aiajakal functc0c1
 c2c3c4
 
 

 --
 gmx-users mailing listgmx-us...@gromacs.org
 http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
 * Only plain text messages are allowed!
 * Please search the archive at
 http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search  before
  posting!
 * Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
  www
 interface or send it togmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.
 * Can't post?