Re: [gmx-users] Re: Generating Pairs with a Buckingham Potential

2011-12-29 Thread Olivia Waring
Hi Mark,

Thanks for your reply! I'm sorry, you're right, as far as I know the manual
doesn't actually mention Buckingham pairs generation... but when I set
gen-pairs to yes and run grompp, I get the following error:

Generating pair parameters is only supported with LJ non-bonded
interactions

I guess I'm wondering how anyone can use the Buckingham potential at all,
since Gromacs does not appear to support pairs generation for the
Buckingham or the use of explicitly defined Buckingham pair parameters
(when defining [ pairtypes ], you have to give the parameters in LJ form).

Thanks so much again,
Olivia


On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Mark Abraham mark.abra...@anu.edu.auwrote:



 On 29/12/11, *Olivia Waring *owar...@princeton.edu wrote:

 I apologize for the truncated message; I pressed send too soon.

 According to the Gromacs manual, pairs cannot be generated automatically
 for the Buckingham potential,


 Where does it say this?


 but the [ pairtypes ] directive seems to only accept parameters in LJ form
 (i.e. c6 and c12, instead of a, b, and c6). I've been looking into ways to
 interconvert between the two potential forms, but haven't found anything...
 Can anyone who has successfully generated a topology using the Buckingham
 potential shed light on this issue?


 You want a 1-4 interaction using Buckingham functional form? If so, I
 don't think GROMACS supports it. If you're trying to combine bits of force
 fields that use L-J with bits of force fields that use Buckingham, then
 that's almost certainly a bad idea.

 Mark




 Thank you so much,
 Olivia

 On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Olivia Waring owar...@princeton.eduwrote:

 Hello Gromacs users,

 I'm using a Buckingham potential for the nonbonded interactions in my
 system, so I have the following lines in my forcefield.itp file:

 [ defaults ]
 ; nbfunccomb-rule   gen-pairs   fudgeLJ fudgeQQ
   2 1   no  1.0 1.0




 --
 Olivia Waring (王维娅)
 Princeton University '12
 AB Chemistry




 --
 Olivia Waring (王维娅)
 Princeton University '12
 AB Chemistry



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

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

Re: [gmx-users] Re: Generating Pairs with a Buckingham Potential

2011-12-29 Thread Mark Abraham

On 30/12/2011 5:30 AM, Olivia Waring wrote:

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your reply! I'm sorry, you're right, as far as I know the 
manual doesn't actually mention Buckingham pairs generation... but 
when I set gen-pairs to yes and run grompp, I get the following error:


Generating pair parameters is only supported with LJ non-bonded 
interactions


I guess I'm wondering how anyone can use the Buckingham potential at 
all, since Gromacs does not appear to support pairs generation for the 
Buckingham or the use of explicitly defined Buckingham pair parameters 
(when defining [ pairtypes ], you have to give the parameters in LJ 
form).


Why do you need pairs with your model?

Mark



Thanks so much again,
Olivia


On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Mark Abraham mark.abra...@anu.edu.au 
mailto:mark.abra...@anu.edu.au wrote:


On 29/12/11, *Olivia Waring *owar...@princeton.edu
mailto:owar...@princeton.edu wrote:

I apologize for the truncated message; I pressed send too soon.

According to the Gromacs manual, pairs cannot be generated
automatically for the Buckingham potential,

Where does it say this?

but the [ pairtypes ] directive seems to only accept parameters
in LJ form (i.e. c6 and c12, instead of a, b, and c6). I've been
looking into ways to interconvert between the two potential
forms, but haven't found anything... Can anyone who has
successfully generated a topology using the Buckingham potential
shed light on this issue?

You want a 1-4 interaction using Buckingham functional form? If
so, I don't think GROMACS supports it. If you're trying to combine
bits of force fields that use L-J with bits of force fields that
use Buckingham, then that's almost certainly a bad idea.
Mark


Thank you so much,
Olivia

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Olivia Waring
owar...@princeton.edu mailto:owar...@princeton.edu wrote:

Hello Gromacs users,

I'm using a Buckingham potential for the nonbonded
interactions in my system, so I have the following lines in
my forcefield.itp file:

[ defaults ]
; nbfunccomb-rule   gen-pairs   fudgeLJ  
  fudgeQQ
  2 1   no  1.0  
  1.0





-- 
Olivia Waring (???)

Princeton University '12
AB Chemistry




-- 
Olivia Waring (???)

Princeton University '12
AB Chemistry



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








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