Tsjerk Wassenaar, thank you very much for you suggestion even if most of them
have been manipulated.
"Write out the energies at every step and check which of the energy
contributions goes astray. This may give you a good clue to where
you're mistake is. Also, run through the topology again, b
> Dear Mark,
>
> I read the manual few times looking for a clue. The only thing I could
> understand it that epsilon_rf is not taking inti account if I don't use
> reaction field.
7.3.9 clearly says "epsilon_rf: (1) The relative dielectric constant of
the reaction field. This is only used with rea
Dear Mark,
I read the manual few times looking for a clue. The only thing I could
understand it that epsilon_rf is not taking inti account if I don't use
reaction field.
Best, Itamar.
Mark Abraham wrote:
Dear all,
I wish to calculate the dielectric constant of small molecules liquids.
In o
> Dear all,
>
> I wish to calculate the dielectric constant of small molecules liquids.
> In order to do so, I am simulating the system using PME, with epsilon_r
> = 1.
>
> I have few questions:
> 1. What is the meaning of epsilon_rf when I am using PME, if it
> important, what it s
Dear all,
I wish to calculate the dielectric constant of small molecules liquids.
In order to do so, I am simulating the system using PME, with epsilon_r
= 1.
I have few questions:
1. What is the meaning of epsilon_rf when I am using PME, if it
important, what it should be?
2.
> Dear gromacs guys
>
> Why would genbox put more water molecules in my .gro file than in my .top
> file? I'm sure all I have to do is edit the number in my top file, but I
> have not had this happen before, does anyone know of a reason that this
> happens so I can fix my file?
genbox doesn't rea
Dear gromacs guys
Why would genbox put more water molecules in my .gro file than in my .top file?
I'm sure all I have to do is edit the number in my top file, but I have not had
this happen before, does anyone know of a reason that this happens so I can
fix my file?
Will Welch
___
Hi Tsjerk,
true
i have to remember to start to count from 0 ... as usual :P
thanks
andrea
Andrea Spitaleri PhD
Dulbecco Telethon Institute
c/o DIBIT Scientific Institute
Biomolecular NMR, 1B4
Via Olgettina 58
20132 Milano (Italy)
- Original Message -
From: "Tsjerk Wassenaar" <[EM
Thanks a lot.
___
gmx-users mailing listgmx-users@gromacs.org
http://www.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
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.
Hey Andrea,
Also note that you have 70 FRAMES with 1 ps time step. That means,
with the first frame at t=0, that you have a maximum time of (70-1)*1
ps = 69 ps in the output.
Ciao!
Tsjerk
On 3/7/07, David van der Spoel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
andrea spitaleri wrote:
> Hi,
> however in md0.
Hi Merc,
Probably, the .tpr file you used for trjconv -pbc nojump already had
the ligand jumped. In that case, you will find all frames consistently
having a shift between the ligand and the protein. Make sure you use a
reference which has the ligand in place (the .pdb or .gro file you
used to se
Hi Ji Qing,
Write out the energies at every step and check which of the energy
contributions goes astray. This may give you a good clue to where
you're mistake is. Also, run through the topology again, by hand,
checking all bonds, angles, dihedrals, exclusion (implicit ones!),
etc.
Good luck,
T
2007/3/7, marco cammarata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
I'm using g_rdf to calculate the RDF of a system.
The "r range" ends at 3nm.
r range ends at 3nm because (your box size)/2 is 3 nm
I would like to change it to 100nm but it seems that there are
no option for it.
100 nm? Are you sure?
marco cammarata wrote:
Hi,
I'm using g_rdf to calculate the RDF of a system.
The "r range" ends at 3nm.
I would like to change it to 100nm but it seems that there are
no option for it.
Can you help me ?
thanks,
marco
The CVS version has an option to turn off the periodic boundary
conditions. T
From: Seungho Choe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Discussion list for GROMACS users
To: gmx-users@gromacs.org
Subject: [gmx-users] limitations in the umbrella sampling
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:33:38 -0500
Dear all,
In the manual, it says :
If a group contains part of a molecule of which the
Hi,
I'm using g_rdf to calculate the RDF of a system.
The "r range" ends at 3nm.
I would like to change it to 100nm but it seems that there are
no option for it.
Can you help me ?
thanks,
marco
--
Marco Cammarata,
Post-Doc
European Synchrotron Radiation Facility
Material Science Group
6, rue Ju
andrea spitaleri wrote:
Hi,
however in md0.log the right time is reported (69 and not 70)
and
David van der Spoel wrote:
andrea spitaleri wrote:
Hi all,
silly question. I have checked a trr with gmxcheck and I get this
output below:
Item#frames Timestep (ps)
Step701
Ti
Hi,
however in md0.log the right time is reported (69 and not 70)
and
David van der Spoel wrote:
> andrea spitaleri wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> silly question. I have checked a trr with gmxcheck and I get this
>> output below:
>> Item#frames Timestep (ps)
>> Step701
>> Time
Hi
nope they are both finished. I have also checked the edr files and the time
does not correspond to
the time found in the respectively trr files. Those MD are carried out in a
supercomputer (SARA in
Amsterdam) and they were killed by the queue system. Probably as you said a
buffer problem ...
Qiao Baofu wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for your reply!
It is a pure ionic liquid system. I compared this energy result with
that of another system, found that the term of "Coul.-recip." is very
smaller (-4664.24) than another system's result (- 56014.1). All other
terms of the energy are in t
andrea spitaleri wrote:
Hi all,
silly question. I have checked a trr with gmxcheck and I get this output below:
Item#frames Timestep (ps)
Step701
Time701
Lambda 701
Coords 701
Velocities 243
Forces 0
Box
Hi all,
silly question. I have checked a trr with gmxcheck and I get this output below:
Item#frames Timestep (ps)
Step701
Time701
Lambda 701
Coords 701
Velocities 243
Forces 0
Box 701
however if th
> Sorry,
> I digged through the post-list of old user-questions and found the same
> problem occuring.
> the answer to the question was written by David v.d.Spoel and was:
> "the position in the top file where the spc.itp was included is wrong".
>
> In my top file this include statement is at the e
Dear users,
I have a question regarding a simulation (using the amber ports) of DNA
covalently bound to a protein.
First of all I made an entry in the specbond.dat and the bond was correctly
build between the a P of the DNA and a Tyr of the protein.
After that I started grompp and got the followi
Sorry,
I digged through the post-list of old user-questions and found the same
problem occuring.
the answer to the question was written by David v.d.Spoel and was:
"the position in the top file where the spc.itp was included is wrong".
In my top file this include statement is at the end of the sc
I'm currently using AMBER03 for a DNA-protein complex. A little bit
of struggle and extra examination of topologies and such was needed
when setting up the system, but nothing too daunting.
/Erik
7 mar 2007 kl. 01.12 skrev mathieu coincon:
I searched the database in order to choose which f
Hi David,
Thanks for your reply!
It is a pure ionic liquid system. I compared this energy result with that of
another system, found that the term of "Coul.-recip." is very smaller (-
4664.24) than another system's result (-56014.1). All other terms of the
energy are in the same order of magni
thank you for your suggestions. actually i tried all -pbc options, but neither
did help. but i think i found the solution in an old posting from ka feenstra.
there he writes that due to efficiency (iirc) at least one atom of each part of
the system has to be in the rectangular waterbox. therefor
28 matches
Mail list logo