On 24/02/2012 11:56 PM, ramesh cheerla wrote:
Dear Mark,
Thanks for your reply. I am not using both LJ and
Buckingham in the same simulation, but trying to use only Buckingham .
As my system is a polymer which is made of the monomer unit that's
what i am adding to the force
Dear Mark,
Thanks for your reply. I am not using both LJ and
Buckingham in the same simulation, but trying to use only Buckingham . As
my system is a polymer which is made of the monomer unit that's what i am
adding to the force field. Our polymer system uses the parameters only
On 24/02/2012 5:20 PM, ramesh cheerla wrote:
Dear Mark
I am very thank ful to you for your valuble
suggestion. I have verified my results by changing the sigma and
epsilon values in [atomtypes ] directive of the ffnonbonded.itp .
Results were uneffected by changing these valu
Dear Mark
I am very thank ful to you for your valuble suggestion. I
have verified my results by changing the sigma and epsilon values in
[atomtypes ] directive of the ffnonbonded.itp . Results were uneffected by
changing these values.
Here i have one another doubt regarding [ pairty
On 23/02/2012 6:02 AM, ramesh cheerla wrote:
Dear gromacs users,
I am adding a new residue to the
existing force field in gromacs for that i am using some new atom
types i added these atom types to the atomtypes.atp file and
ffnonbonded.itp and I am using Buc
Dear gromacs users,
I am adding a new residue to the existing
force field in gromacs for that i am using some new atom types i added
these atom types to the atomtypes.atp file and ffnonbonded.itp and I am
using Buckingham potential for the non-bonded interactions
6 matches
Mail list logo