> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:15:05 +1100
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [gmx-users] Energy Conservation with 4fs timestep
>
> Joe Joe wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I get good conservation when running NVE in gromacs with 4 fs when I use
> > PME-switch for electrostatics but not so good when I use switch. Any
> > thoughts why that would be? Params shown below.
>
> Finite cutoffs (such as used with "switch") are intrinsically unlikely
> to conserve energy.
>
> Mark
That is not right.
Finite cut-off's such as switch and shift are purposely designed to conserve
energy.
Switch is not particularly good though, since the switching introduces large
forces.
I would advise to use PME-switch or reaction-field-zero for electrostatics and
shift for vdw.
But the main problem in your setup seems to be the 0.1 nm buffer between the
cut-off
and rlist. In general you will need a buffer of 0.25 to 0.3 nm.
You can use rlist=-1 to get exact integration and then vary rlist to get a
reasonable
neighborlist update frequency (somewhere around 10 steps).
We should automate the choice of rlist such that the user does not need to worry
about this.
Berk
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
gmx-users mailing list [email protected]
http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/search before posting!
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
