Re: [gmx-users] Fat-bottom restrain

2019-09-13 Thread Alex
Hi Mark, I am using Gromacs v.2018.x and as I tested it is not the matter of using GPU or CPU. The issue was from my side where by mistake I had put the wall (in all posre.x,y,z.itp) exactly on the outer box borders so that my inner box and outer box were fully identical, so the molecules had no l

Re: [gmx-users] Fat-bottom restrain

2019-09-11 Thread Mark Abraham
Hi, It's certainly conceivable that such restraints are ineffective in some run modes. However, "on the GPU" describes a range of scenarios. If you're running with 2019.x, does adding -bonded cpu to the mdrun command line restore the functionality? Otherwise, please try the "working CPU" run on a

Re: [gmx-users] Fat-bottom restrain

2019-09-11 Thread Alex
Thanks Billy, > If the flat bottom restraint energy is zero, then that means that the > restraints aren't being applied, or your predefined distance is not being > exceeded. I doubt you would get binary zero values if it was the second > option, so something is probably wrong with your syntax or

Re: [gmx-users] Fat-bottom restrain

2019-09-11 Thread Billy Williams-Noonan
If the flat bottom restraint energy is zero, then that means that the restraints aren't being applied, or your predefined distance is not being exceeded. I doubt you would get binary zero values if it was the second option, so something is probably wrong with your syntax or your inclusion of the r

Re: [gmx-users] Fat-bottom restrain

2019-09-11 Thread Billy Williams-Noonan
You may want to consider using smart-bottom restraints instead? Jokes aside, why does it matter if your molecules move into the next periodic image? Cheers, Billy On Wed., 11 Sep. 2019, 5:03 pm Alex, wrote: > Hi, > > Any comment, please? > > Thank you. > Alex > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 10:22 P

Re: [gmx-users] Fat-bottom restrain

2019-09-11 Thread Alex
Hi, Any comment, please? Thank you. Alex On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 10:22 PM Alex wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Thank you for your response. > Here are the part of options that gmx energy gives me out: > > 9 Coulomb-(SR)10 Coul.-recip. > 11 Flat-bottom-posres

Re: [gmx-users] Fat-bottom restrain

2019-09-09 Thread Alex
Hi Mark, Thank you for your response. Here are the part of options that gmx energy gives me out: 9 Coulomb-(SR)10 Coul.-recip. 11 Flat-bottom-posres 12 Potential 13 Kinetic-En. 14 Total-Energy15 Conserved-En Energy

Re: [gmx-users] Fat-bottom restrain

2019-09-07 Thread Mark Abraham
Hi, The total potential energy violating the restraints is reported, so you should see that there is an appropriate contribution there, and probably plan to stiffen the force constant. Mark On Fri., 6 Sep. 2019, 17:23 Alex, wrote: > Dear all, > Using the flat-bottom (K=4184 KJ/(mol. nm^2)) res

[gmx-users] Fat-bottom restrain

2019-09-06 Thread Alex
Dear all, Using the flat-bottom (K=4184 KJ/(mol. nm^2)) restrain I tried to have a smaller cubic box as semi-preamble walls inside a bigger cubic box so that all molecules except water would stay inside the smaller box during the simulation, however, the wall doesn't work and the molecules are also