From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Discussion list for GROMACS users <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [gmx-users] RE: Coul-LR in PME and in Reaction Field
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:31:48 +0200 (MEST)
Thank you very much, Berk!
1) That only leaves one unanswered point, that seems logical but of which I
would like to be certain of.. Is there any accessible term in the reaction
field
implementation accounting for long-range electrostatic interaction due to
the
environnement dielectric? Or is this contribution simply added to Coul-SR?
2) Last, I have a situation that I cannot understand, comparing RF and PME
for a
100 residue protein in a water cubic box of roughly 70*70*70A. Comparing
contributions of energy groups (g_energy), I obtain:
-Reaction field: |coul-SR prot-prot| > |coul-SR prot-other|
-PME: |coul-SR prot-prot| < |coul-SR prot-other| (the opposite)
(with "||" for absolute values)
Would that be because of the long-range electrostatic contribution (with
the
environnement dielectric), added to coul-SR as I suggest in 1)?
You can not simply compare this terms.
Reaction-field is an approximation. It assumes a homogeneous dielectric
medium beyond the cut-off which is clearly not true for your system.
Your protein probably has charged residues which cause significant
error with RF.
Secondly the Coul-SR term does not contain 1/r.
With RF it is 1/r plus the effect of the reaction field force.
This might be what you call "long-range electrostatic contribution",
but it is not really long-range.
With PME is it erfc(beta*r)/r.
Berk.
_______________________________________________
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
