Hi,
Clarification: I may not be able to help you directly but I can suggest
you which information you should perhaps give us to enable people more
knowledgeable than me to help.
On 24/09/10 17:33, Sai Pooja wrote:
I use combination rule 1; but I also define all tabulated interactions for
all possible *pairs* under the [ nonbond_params ] section, so the
combination rule actually doesn't matter much.
Are you suggesting that I can change the combination rule in the
forcefield.itp file but I must also supply a table for pairs using -tablep
option for this to work?
I am not "suggesting": I am only saying what I am doing :)
Does this mean that one cannot use tables with forcefield parameters?
Clarification: I want to use forcefield parameters with user defined tables
i.e. I want to use sigma and epsilon values generated by pdb2gmx along
with a user-defined modified potential energy function using tables.
This is absolutely doable -I do it everyday, in fact. So, don't despair. :)
Now, it seems that you talked about a problem with convergence of the
SETTLE algorithm. I know little about it, but, couldn't it simply be
that your tables are "wrong" (that is, they don't play well with
algorithms?) What is their shape, actually, and on which
atomtypes/groups are you applying your table? What is the forcefield you
are using along with the table?
M.
--
gmx-users mailing list [email protected]
http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
Please search the archive at
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/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/Support/Mailing_Lists
