On 11/6/13 4:52 PM, Mark Abraham wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Justin Lemkul <jalem...@vt.edu> wrote:

On 11/6/13 2:14 PM, Ehsan Sadeghi wrote:

Many thanks Justin. What is an appropriate cut-off value? My box size is
0.5 nm; based on the definition of cut-off radius, its value shouble be
smaller than d/2; therefore 0.24 is an appropriate cut-off value. Am I

No.  The cutoff value is not a function of box size; it is a fixed
property of the force field.  No wonder the simulation is crashing.  If
your box is only 0.5 nm, then a cutoff of 1.5 nm is triple-counting
interactions across PBC!

Triple counting is not possible, per minimum-image convention. I think

True.  Thinking too quickly ;)

Ehsan's report of a "0.5nm" box size is probably wrong, e.g. per its
documentation, editconf -d 0.5 does not produce a 0.5nm box.

editconf -box 0.5 does produce such a box, though, so it is possible. grompp should have warned quite obviously about the combination of a 0.5-nm box with 1.5-nm cutoffs, though.



Justin A. Lemkul, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Fellow

Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences
School of Pharmacy
Health Sciences Facility II, Room 601
University of Maryland, Baltimore
20 Penn St.
Baltimore, MD 21201

jalem...@outerbanks.umaryland.edu | (410) 706-7441

gmx-users mailing list    gmx-users@gromacs.org
* 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 gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.
* Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists

Reply via email to