Re: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse
Hi Kitty, Your english is quite ok.., no need to worry about that too much. Earlier remarks to someone else also had to do more with poor grammar structure, making it very hard to follow the question. First, if I didn't make it clear enough, you have to find the papers from Jorgenson about the OPLS force field. Second, the thing with parameterization of force fields is this: a set of parameters is derived to obtain a good fit of the simulation behaviour to experimentally or ab initio derived data. If a force field is parameterized taking only interactions into account within a sphere of a certain radius, than the fit between the behaviour obtained with these parameters and the desired behaviour will worsen if each particle suddenly "sees" particles it wasn't supposed to see. This particularly applies to C6/C12 Lennard-Jones parameters. Now if it doesn't become clear to you, please read about force fields and force field development. That is a vital part of molecular dynamics simulations, and I wouldn't recommend doing simulations, if you don't have a basic understanding of these things. Although highly relevant to your work, I do think that there more fundamental problems underlying your initial question posted. Changing the cut-off shouldn't really make the difference between explosion and proper behaviour. Cheers, Tsjerk On 3/9/07, kitty ji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Wassenaar: As mensioned in GMX manual3.3 , the parameter of OPLS force field is listed bellow: Name FUNCTION bond 1 pair 1 angle 1 dihedral 3 nb1 Col 3 In the manual,4.6.3 Treatment of Cutoffs,it is said that "In the neighbor list all interaction pairs that fall within rlist are stored. Furthermore, the interactions between pairs that do not fall within rlist but do fall within max(rcoulomb,rvdw) are computed during NS, and the forces and energy are stored separately, and added to short-range forces at every time step between successive NS." From the paragraph, I concluded that when the distance of cutoff is increased, the further interaction pair will be considered. So the presion will be increased also. I modified the cutoff from 1.5 nm to 1.2 nm.Till now the system is not exploding. Whatever 1.5 nm or 1.2 nm, it has been proved that 0.9 nm is too short to simulating with OPLS. By the way, where do you find the critical value 1.2 nm. I can not found it by google. But there is really a lot of works used that values. Thank you very much. For the IE format, these mail was copied from WORD. Because I'm not confident with my English.:) Message: 7 Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:07:47 +0100 From: "Tsjerk Wassenaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse To: "kitty ji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Discussion list for GROMACS users" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hi Kitty, OPLS was developed (IIRC) for use with a cut-off of 1.2 nm. Not shorter, not longer. If you set the cut-off higher, you introduce additional force components; noise, artefacts, not precision. It may be good to do some reading about force fields and the parameterization thereof. The reaction field is a correction for the neglect of electrostatic interaction beyond the cut off. It should be used when using a GROMOS force field, as those are parameterized for use with it. Regarding OPLS, I'm not sure. I thought it was not parameterized for use with RF, but either a plain cut-off or a cut-off with a switch function. You should check the OPLS papers to be sure. By the way, please keep discussions on the list... In that way, it is publicly archived, which potentially saves us a lot of trouble answering the same questions over and over. Cheers, Tsjerk On 3/9/07, kitty ji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for your reply. > > The force field I used here is OPLS. Increasing the cutoff means to increase the precision of caluculation not "underlying cause". Therefore it is acceptable. In addition, it is said that cutoff 9 angstrom is not enough for electricity calculation. > > what is using reaction-field? I thought it was not used here. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Tsjerk Wassenaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "kitty ji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Discussion list for GROMACS users" > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 10:34 PM > Subject: Re: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse > > > Hi Kitty, > > Such a solution is unsatisfactory, as it seems that you're masking an > underlying cause. Now, I'm not sure of your other parameters, but when > using a cut-off (do you use reaction-field) you would usually (gromos > force field) us
Re: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse
Hi Wassenaar: As mensioned in GMX manual3.3 , the parameter of OPLS force field is listed bellow: Name FUNCTION bond 1 pair 1 angle 1 dihedral 3 nb1 Col 3 In the manual,4.6.3 Treatment of Cutoffs,it is said that "In the neighbor list all interaction pairs that fall within rlist are stored. Furthermore, the interactions between pairs that do not fall within rlist but do fall within max(rcoulomb,rvdw) are computed during NS, and the forces and energy are stored separately, and added to short-range forces at every time step between successive NS." From the paragraph, I concluded that when the distance of cutoff is increased, the further interaction pair will be considered. So the presion will be increased also. I modified the cutoff from 1.5 nm to 1.2 nm.Till now the system is not exploding. Whatever 1.5 nm or 1.2 nm, it has been proved that 0.9 nm is too short to simulating with OPLS. By the way, where do you find the critical value 1.2 nm. I can not found it by google. But there is really a lot of works used that values. Thank you very much. For the IE format, these mail was copied from WORD. Because I'm not confident with my English.:) Message: 7 Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:07:47 +0100 From: "Tsjerk Wassenaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse To: "kitty ji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Discussion list for GROMACS users" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hi Kitty, OPLS was developed (IIRC) for use with a cut-off of 1.2 nm. Not shorter, not longer. If you set the cut-off higher, you introduce additional force components; noise, artefacts, not precision. It may be good to do some reading about force fields and the parameterization thereof. The reaction field is a correction for the neglect of electrostatic interaction beyond the cut off. It should be used when using a GROMOS force field, as those are parameterized for use with it. Regarding OPLS, I'm not sure. I thought it was not parameterized for use with RF, but either a plain cut-off or a cut-off with a switch function. You should check the OPLS papers to be sure. By the way, please keep discussions on the list... In that way, it is publicly archived, which potentially saves us a lot of trouble answering the same questions over and over. Cheers, Tsjerk On 3/9/07, kitty ji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for your reply. > > The force field I used here is OPLS. Increasing the cutoff means to increase > the precision of caluculation not "underlying cause". Therefore it is > acceptable. In addition, it is said that cutoff 9 angstrom is not enough for > electricity calculation. > > what is using reaction-field? I thought it was not used here. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Tsjerk Wassenaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "kitty ji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Discussion list for GROMACS users" > > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 10:34 PM > Subject: Re: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse > > > Hi Kitty, > > Such a solution is unsatisfactory, as it seems that you're masking an > underlying cause. Now, I'm not sure of your other parameters, but when > using a cut-off (do you use reaction-field) you would usually (gromos > force field) use a twin-range of 0.9/1.4, which is what the force > field was parameterized for. > > If you look at the energies in order to find the cause of a crash, you > want to look for the energy term first displaying strange behaviour. > You also may want to try setting the neighbour list update to every > step. > > And please, don't use html formatted e-mails... :) > > Hope it helps, > > Tsjerk > > > On 3/8/07, kitty ji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Tsjerk Wassenaar, thank you very much for you suggestion even if most of > > them have been manipulated. > > > > > > > > "Write out the energies at every step and check which of the energy > > contributions goes astray. This may give you a good clue to where > > you're mistake is. Also, run through the topology again, by hand, > > checking all bonds, angles, dihedrals, exclusion (implicit ones!), > > etc." > > > > when the explosion happened, the energy of bond, angle and potential will > > were increase. And the topology has been checked several times. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I increase the cutoff of VDW & Coulomb from 0.9 to 1.5. The system looks > > ok from last night to this time. If the problem is fixed, I
Re: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse
Hi Kitty, OPLS was developed (IIRC) for use with a cut-off of 1.2 nm. Not shorter, not longer. If you set the cut-off higher, you introduce additional force components; noise, artefacts, not precision. It may be good to do some reading about force fields and the parameterization thereof. The reaction field is a correction for the neglect of electrostatic interaction beyond the cut off. It should be used when using a GROMOS force field, as those are parameterized for use with it. Regarding OPLS, I'm not sure. I thought it was not parameterized for use with RF, but either a plain cut-off or a cut-off with a switch function. You should check the OPLS papers to be sure. By the way, please keep discussions on the list... In that way, it is publicly archived, which potentially saves us a lot of trouble answering the same questions over and over. Cheers, Tsjerk On 3/9/07, kitty ji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for your reply. The force field I used here is OPLS. Increasing the cutoff means to increase the precision of caluculation not "underlying cause". Therefore it is acceptable. In addition, it is said that cutoff 9 angstrom is not enough for electricity calculation. what is using reaction-field? I thought it was not used here. - Original Message - From: "Tsjerk Wassenaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "kitty ji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Discussion list for GROMACS users" Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 10:34 PM Subject: Re: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse Hi Kitty, Such a solution is unsatisfactory, as it seems that you're masking an underlying cause. Now, I'm not sure of your other parameters, but when using a cut-off (do you use reaction-field) you would usually (gromos force field) use a twin-range of 0.9/1.4, which is what the force field was parameterized for. If you look at the energies in order to find the cause of a crash, you want to look for the energy term first displaying strange behaviour. You also may want to try setting the neighbour list update to every step. And please, don't use html formatted e-mails... :) Hope it helps, Tsjerk On 3/8/07, kitty ji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Tsjerk Wassenaar, thank you very much for you suggestion even if most of > them have been manipulated. > > > > "Write out the energies at every step and check which of the energy > contributions goes astray. This may give you a good clue to where > you're mistake is. Also, run through the topology again, by hand, > checking all bonds, angles, dihedrals, exclusion (implicit ones!), > etc." > > when the explosion happened, the energy of bond, angle and potential will > were increase. And the topology has been checked several times. > > > > > > Now I increase the cutoff of VDW & Coulomb from 0.9 to 1.5. The system looks > ok from last night to this time. If the problem is fixed, I conclude that > cutoff 0.9 is not enough for electric system. > > > > Hope this conclusion is helpful for GMX users. > > > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:49:30 +0100 > From: "Tsjerk Wassenaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse > To: "kitty ji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Discussion list for GROMACS > users" > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312; format=flowed > > > Hi Ji Qing, > > Write out the energies at every step and check which of the energy > contributions goes astray. This may give you a good clue to where > you're mistake is. Also, run through the topology again, by hand, > checking all bonds, angles, dihedrals, exclusion (implicit ones!), > etc. > > Good luck, > > Tsjerk > > On 3/7/07, kitty ji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks Mark. > > But when one polymer chain was used, non-bonded interaction has already > been > > there. Because one chain means C44H156O22. > > After all, I'd like to try more chains. > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:01:52 +1100 > > From: Mark Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse > > To: Discussion list for GROMACS users > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 > > > > kitty ji wrote: > > > Hi GMX user: > > > > > > A model for Poly(vinyl methyl ether) was built with OPLS force field ( > > > all H ). > > > > > > > > > > > > When the model was run alone (a single chain) in vacuum, anything goes > ok. > > > > > > >
Re: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse
Hi Kitty, Such a solution is unsatisfactory, as it seems that you're masking an underlying cause. Now, I'm not sure of your other parameters, but when using a cut-off (do you use reaction-field) you would usually (gromos force field) use a twin-range of 0.9/1.4, which is what the force field was parameterized for. If you look at the energies in order to find the cause of a crash, you want to look for the energy term first displaying strange behaviour. You also may want to try setting the neighbour list update to every step. And please, don't use html formatted e-mails... :) Hope it helps, Tsjerk On 3/8/07, kitty ji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tsjerk Wassenaar, thank you very much for you suggestion even if most of them have been manipulated. "Write out the energies at every step and check which of the energy contributions goes astray. This may give you a good clue to where you're mistake is. Also, run through the topology again, by hand, checking all bonds, angles, dihedrals, exclusion (implicit ones!), etc." when the explosion happened, the energy of bond, angle and potential will were increase. And the topology has been checked several times. Now I increase the cutoff of VDW & Coulomb from 0.9 to 1.5. The system looks ok from last night to this time. If the problem is fixed, I conclude that cutoff 0.9 is not enough for electric system. Hope this conclusion is helpful for GMX users. Message: 2 Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:49:30 +0100 From: "Tsjerk Wassenaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse To: "kitty ji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Discussion list for GROMACS users" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312; format=flowed Hi Ji Qing, Write out the energies at every step and check which of the energy contributions goes astray. This may give you a good clue to where you're mistake is. Also, run through the topology again, by hand, checking all bonds, angles, dihedrals, exclusion (implicit ones!), etc. Good luck, Tsjerk On 3/7/07, kitty ji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thanks Mark. > But when one polymer chain was used, non-bonded interaction has already been > there. Because one chain means C44H156O22. > After all, I'd like to try more chains. > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:01:52 +1100 > From: Mark Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse > To: Discussion list for GROMACS users > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 > > kitty ji wrote: > > Hi GMX user: > > > > A model for Poly(vinyl methyl ether) was built with OPLS force field ( > > all H ). > > > > > > > > When the model was run alone (a single chain) in vacuum, anything goes ok. > > > > > > > > But with 45 chains box, the system will be collapse with a little bond > > elongates abnormal whatever in NVT or NPT. > > > > > > > > The relax time of pressure and temperature were adjust but no helpful. > > > > > > > > How can I found some possible reason and then fix it ? Any advise will > > be appreciated. > > If an isolated molecule doesn't do anything strange, and two more more > do, then you have a problem with inter-molecular interactions, i.e. the > non-bonded ones. Try with just 2 chains to verify this... and look > carefully at the atom types and the non-bonded parameters for them. > > Mark > > > > * > Ji Qing > Institute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences > Tel: 0086-10-62562894 £¬82618423 > * > ___ > gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org > http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users > Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the > www interface or send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Can't post? Read > http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php > -- Tsjerk A. Wassenaar, Ph.D. Junior UD (post-doc) Biomolecular NMR, Bijvoet Center Utrecht University Padualaan 8 3584 CH Utrecht The Netherlands P: +31-30-2539931 F: +31-30-2537623 ___ gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the www interface or send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php -- Tsjerk A. Wassenaar, Ph.D. Junior UD (post-doc) Biomolecular NMR, Bijvoet Center Utrecht University Padualaan 8 3584 CH Utrecht The Netherlands P: +31-30-2539931 F: +31-30-2537623 ___ gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the www interface or send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
Re: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse
Tsjerk Wassenaar, thank you very much for you suggestion even if most of them have been manipulated. "Write out the energies at every step and check which of the energy contributions goes astray. This may give you a good clue to where you're mistake is. Also, run through the topology again, by hand, checking all bonds, angles, dihedrals, exclusion (implicit ones!), etc." when the explosion happened, the energy of bond, angle and potential will were increase. And the topology has been checked several times. Now I increase the cutoff of VDW & Coulomb from 0.9 to 1.5. The system looks ok from last night to this time. If the problem is fixed, I conclude that cutoff 0.9 is not enough for electric system. Hope this conclusion is helpful for GMX users. Message: 2 Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:49:30 +0100 From: "Tsjerk Wassenaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse To: "kitty ji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Discussion list for GROMACS users" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312; format=flowed Hi Ji Qing, Write out the energies at every step and check which of the energy contributions goes astray. This may give you a good clue to where you're mistake is. Also, run through the topology again, by hand, checking all bonds, angles, dihedrals, exclusion (implicit ones!), etc. Good luck, Tsjerk On 3/7/07, kitty ji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thanks Mark. > But when one polymer chain was used, non-bonded interaction has already been > there. Because one chain means C44H156O22. > After all, I'd like to try more chains. > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:01:52 +1100 > From: Mark Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse > To: Discussion list for GROMACS users > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 > > kitty ji wrote: > > Hi GMX user: > > > > A model for Poly(vinyl methyl ether) was built with OPLS force field ( > > all H ). > > > > > > > > When the model was run alone (a single chain) in vacuum, anything goes ok. > > > > > > > > But with 45 chains box, the system will be collapse with a little bond > > elongates abnormal whatever in NVT or NPT. > > > > > > > > The relax time of pressure and temperature were adjust but no helpful. > > > > > > > > How can I found some possible reason and then fix it ? Any advise will > > be appreciated. > > If an isolated molecule doesn't do anything strange, and two more more > do, then you have a problem with inter-molecular interactions, i.e. the > non-bonded ones. Try with just 2 chains to verify this... and look > carefully at the atom types and the non-bonded parameters for them. > > Mark > > > > * > Ji Qing > Institute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences > Tel: 0086-10-62562894 £¬82618423 > * > ___ > gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org > http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users > Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the > www interface or send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Can't post? Read > http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php > -- Tsjerk A. Wassenaar, Ph.D. Junior UD (post-doc) Biomolecular NMR, Bijvoet Center Utrecht University Padualaan 8 3584 CH Utrecht The Netherlands P: +31-30-2539931 F: +31-30-2537623 ___ gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the www interface or send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
Re: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse
Hi Ji Qing, Write out the energies at every step and check which of the energy contributions goes astray. This may give you a good clue to where you're mistake is. Also, run through the topology again, by hand, checking all bonds, angles, dihedrals, exclusion (implicit ones!), etc. Good luck, Tsjerk On 3/7/07, kitty ji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks Mark. But when one polymer chain was used, non-bonded interaction has already been there. Because one chain means C44H156O22. After all, I'd like to try more chains. Message: 1 Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:01:52 +1100 From: Mark Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse To: Discussion list for GROMACS users Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 kitty ji wrote: > Hi GMX user: > > A model for Poly(vinyl methyl ether) was built with OPLS force field ( > all H ). > > > > When the model was run alone (a single chain) in vacuum, anything goes ok. > > > > But with 45 chains box, the system will be collapse with a little bond > elongates abnormal whatever in NVT or NPT. > > > > The relax time of pressure and temperature were adjust but no helpful. > > > > How can I found some possible reason and then fix it ? Any advise will > be appreciated. If an isolated molecule doesn't do anything strange, and two more more do, then you have a problem with inter-molecular interactions, i.e. the non-bonded ones. Try with just 2 chains to verify this... and look carefully at the atom types and the non-bonded parameters for them. Mark * Ji Qing Institute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences Tel: 0086-10-62562894 ，82618423 * ___ gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the www interface or send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php -- Tsjerk A. Wassenaar, Ph.D. Junior UD (post-doc) Biomolecular NMR, Bijvoet Center Utrecht University Padualaan 8 3584 CH Utrecht The Netherlands P: +31-30-2539931 F: +31-30-2537623 ___ gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the www interface or send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
re: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse
Thanks Mark. But when one polymer chain was used, non-bonded interaction has already been there. Because one chain means C44H156O22. After all, I'd like to try more chains. Message: 1 Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:01:52 +1100 From: Mark Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse To: Discussion list for GROMACS users Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 kitty ji wrote: > Hi GMX user: > > A model for Poly(vinyl methyl ether) was built with OPLS force field ( > all H ). > > > > When the model was run alone (a single chain) in vacuum, anything goes ok. > > > > But with 45 chains box, the system will be collapse with a little bond > elongates abnormal whatever in NVT or NPT. > > > > The relax time of pressure and temperature were adjust but no helpful. > > > > How can I found some possible reason and then fix it ? Any advise will > be appreciated. If an isolated molecule doesn't do anything strange, and two more more do, then you have a problem with inter-molecular interactions, i.e. the non-bonded ones. Try with just 2 chains to verify this... and look carefully at the atom types and the non-bonded parameters for them. Mark * Ji Qing Institute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences Tel: 0086-10-62562894 ，82618423 *___ gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the www interface or send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
Re: [gmx-users] vacuum right but melt collapse
kitty ji wrote: > Hi GMX user: > > A model for Poly(vinyl methyl ether) was built with OPLS force field ( > all H ). > > > > When the model was run alone (a single chain) in vacuum, anything goes ok. > > > > But with 45 chains box, the system will be collapse with a little bond > elongates abnormal whatever in NVT or NPT. > > > > The relax time of pressure and temperature were adjust but no helpful. > > > > How can I found some possible reason and then fix it ? Any advise will > be appreciated. If an isolated molecule doesn't do anything strange, and two more more do, then you have a problem with inter-molecular interactions, i.e. the non-bonded ones. Try with just 2 chains to verify this... and look carefully at the atom types and the non-bonded parameters for them. Mark ___ gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the www interface or send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
