On 5/25/16 1:44 AM, jagannath mondal wrote:
Hi
I am also interested in the issue of using a flat-bottomed restraint,
for a spherocylinder.
However, I am not sure whether the current gromacs settings of even a
linear combination of a sphere and cylinder can help here to generate a
n
> Lemkul <jalem...@vt.edu>
> Sent: 24 May 2016 12:33:54
> To: gmx-us...@gromacs.org
> Subject: Re: [gmx-users] Combining various Flat-bottomed Potentials
>
> On 5/24/16 12:30 PM, Christopher Neale wrote:
> > I doubt it. The flat-bottom potential in the pull-code is n
alf of Justin
> Lemkul <jalem...@vt.edu>
> Sent: 24 May 2016 12:33:54
> To: gmx-us...@gromacs.org
> Subject: Re: [gmx-users] Combining various Flat-bottomed Potentials
>
> On 5/24/16 12:30 PM, Christopher Neale wrote:
> > I doubt it. The flat-bottom potential in t
-users-boun...@maillist.sys.kth.se
<gromacs.org_gmx-users-boun...@maillist.sys.kth.se> on behalf of Justin Lemkul
<jalem...@vt.edu>
Sent: 24 May 2016 12:33:54
To: gmx-us...@gromacs.org
Subject: Re: [gmx-users] Combining various Flat-bottomed Potentials
On 5/24/16 12:30 PM, Christopher Neal
On 5/24/16 12:30 PM, Christopher Neale wrote:
I doubt it. The flat-bottom potential in the pull-code is not really the
standard definition of a flat-bottom potential. In my opinion, a flat-bottom
potential has a low, and a high defined value and then the restraint increases
harmonically
I doubt it. The flat-bottom potential in the pull-code is not really the
standard definition of a flat-bottom potential. In my opinion, a flat-bottom
potential has a low, and a high defined value and then the restraint increases
harmonically above high and below low with no penalty between low
