On 3/10/18 1:24 PM, Faezeh Pousaneh wrote:
Dear Justin

One more question please,
Do we need to have constraint in this model of CO2?  Isn't it so that we
have fixed the bond lengths and angles (180) in the topology by this method?

The molecule behaves as a rigid rotor. The math is all laid out in the tutorial. Since the construction of the O virtual site positions depend on the bond length connecting the two mass centers (expressed as a fraction), this (1) makes the math easier, (2) aligns well with known and easily demonstrated physics, and (3) prevents the need for parametrizing the bond connecting the two mass centers.

I run 2 simulations, one with constraints = all-angles  and the other
with constraints
= all-bonds, I get different results from them. Why?

Please define "different results."

Every simulation will produce different results; no two trajectories will be binary identical, but their properties should agree within error. I see no reason why there should be any difference here. There are no angles to be constrained, nor are there any bonds to be converted to constraints. There is one explicit constraint in the topology. So that keyword should be having no effect whatsoever.



Justin A. Lemkul, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Virginia Tech Department of Biochemistry

303 Engel Hall
340 West Campus Dr.
Blacksburg, VA 24061

jalem...@vt.edu | (540) 231-3129


Gromacs Users mailing list

* Please search the archive at 
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before posting!

* Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists

* For (un)subscribe requests visit
https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users or send a 
mail to gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.

Reply via email to