Date: Mar 2, 2006 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: g_energy average --- bug?
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:49:38 +0100
However, the average that I got from g_energy was 264,694 K. I really can
As far as I know g_energy averages and rmsd values that are given in stdout are always a bit off. You should only use those for rough information. It gets even worse when you have separate ener.edr files that you look at in a row.
You still can get correct data though: to get those, perform g_analyze over the resulting energy.xvg file. In any case g_analyze will give you more options to analyze the data ( e.g. test for error estimates etc). The
From: "Fernando Mattio" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [gmx-users] g_energy average --- bug?
not understand why this difference, it should be some value between 261 K
and 263,5K. Is it a bug from g_energy? Should I trust in this average even
knowing that the temperature accordind to the temperature file didn´t
reached this value?? I wait for kind informations.
As far as I know g_energy averages and rmsd values that are given in stdout are always a bit off. You should only use those for rough information. It gets even worse when you have separate ener.edr files that you look at in a row.
You still can get correct data though: to get those, perform g_analyze over the resulting energy.xvg file. In any case g_analyze will give you more options to analyze the data ( e.g. test for error estimates etc). The
_______________________________________________ gmx-users mailing list [email protected] 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
