Re: [gmx-users] Re:The effect of coulomb-modifier and vdw-modifier in Verlet cutoff scheme

2013-05-24 Thread Mark Abraham
You don't turn on those modifiers, you choose to shift the potential. (In
the future there might be more options.) Shifting the potential is quite
different from the action of vdwtype=shift, see manual 4.1, 7.3. The
potential should be the integral of the force, if you want it to mean
anything. Whether that's important depends what you're doing and want to
observe. The potential is irrelevant if you are just sampling space to see
what is there, but it's critical if you're trying to compute thermodynamic
properties.

Mark


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Bin Liu fdusuperstr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dear Mark,

 Could you elaborate on your answer? In my group cutoff scheme, I used

 ns_type = grid  ; search neighboring grid cels
 nstlist = 5 ; 10 fs
 rlist   = 1.3   ; short-range neighborlist cutoff (in nm)
 rcoulomb= 1.3   ; short-range electrostatic cutoff (in nm)
 rvdw= 1.0   ; short-range van der Waals cutoff (in nm)
 vdwtype = Shift
 rvdw_switch = 0.9

 What is the advantage of turning on coulomb-modifier and vdw-modifier in
 terms of physical or chemical accuracy of simulations? Thanks.

 Bin



 Those modifiers shift only the potential, as manual 7.3 points out. So the
 forces and sampling are unaffected, so it does not surprise me that APL is
 unaffected by the use of such a shift. If your group cutoff scheme was
 unbuffered (rlist = max(rcoulcomb,rvdw) and nstlist  1), then if the
 observed difference is significant, then that could be the reason.
 --
 gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org
 http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
 * 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 mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org
http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
* 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:The effect of coulomb-modifier and vdw-modifier in Verlet cutoff scheme

2013-05-23 Thread Bin Liu
Dear Mark,

Could you elaborate on your answer? In my group cutoff scheme, I used

ns_type = grid  ; search neighboring grid cels
nstlist = 5 ; 10 fs
rlist   = 1.3   ; short-range neighborlist cutoff (in nm)
rcoulomb= 1.3   ; short-range electrostatic cutoff (in nm)
rvdw= 1.0   ; short-range van der Waals cutoff (in nm)
vdwtype = Shift
rvdw_switch = 0.9

What is the advantage of turning on coulomb-modifier and vdw-modifier in
terms of physical or chemical accuracy of simulations? Thanks.

Bin



Those modifiers shift only the potential, as manual 7.3 points out. So the
forces and sampling are unaffected, so it does not surprise me that APL is
unaffected by the use of such a shift. If your group cutoff scheme was
unbuffered (rlist = max(rcoulcomb,rvdw) and nstlist  1), then if the
observed difference is significant, then that could be the reason.
-- 
gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org
http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
* 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