Re: [gmx-users] Why is there a difference between an angle of 0 or 180 deg. for a type 9 proper dihedral with multiplicity of 2?

2015-07-05 Thread Justin Lemkul
On 7/5/15 12:56 AM, Christopher Neale wrote: Dear Justin: Thank you for your help. I am glad to see that I was not way out to lunch in my interpretation of multiplicity and proper dihedral angles. First, the out-of-plane motions are not minor. Even just in EM, the dihedral angles along the

Re: [gmx-users] Why is there a difference between an angle of 0 or 180 deg. for a type 9 proper dihedral with multiplicity of 2?

2015-07-05 Thread Christopher Neale
Dear Justin: here is a topology followed by initial coordinates (in which the rings of both Phe are planar, straight out of molefacture/pdb2gmx). Run this in EM or MD and the SC ring of Phe #1 will distort. However, replace 0 15.1669998 2 by 180 15.1669998 2 and everything is groovy.

Re: [gmx-users] Why is there a difference between an angle of 0 or 180 deg. for a type 9 proper dihedral with multiplicity of 2?

2015-07-05 Thread Justin Lemkul
On 7/5/15 9:10 AM, Christopher Neale wrote: Dear Justin: here is a topology followed by initial coordinates (in which the rings of both Phe are planar, straight out of molefacture/pdb2gmx). Run this in EM or MD and the SC ring of Phe #1 will distort. However, replace 0 15.1669998 2 by 180

Re: [gmx-users] Why is there a difference between an angle of 0 or 180 deg. for a type 9 proper dihedral with multiplicity of 2?

2015-07-05 Thread Christopher Neale
I see, thank you Justin. I guess that even though I did read the equation, which is: K(1 + cos(n*phi - phi_s) I was actually thinking: K(1 + cos(n* [ phi - phi_s ] ) so everything is as it should be. Thanks for all your help, Chris. From:

[gmx-users] Why is there a difference between an angle of 0 or 180 deg. for a type 9 proper dihedral with multiplicity of 2?

2015-07-04 Thread Christopher Neale
Dear Gromacs users: I have been working on creating a topology for an exotic molecule. It contains aromatic rings and my parameters always seemed to allow the rings to buckle and become non-planer, much like a glucose ring would (though a little less extensively). However, I have managed to

Re: [gmx-users] Why is there a difference between an angle of 0 or 180 deg. for a type 9 proper dihedral with multiplicity of 2?

2015-07-04 Thread Christopher Neale
Verified same behaviour in gromacs 4.6.7 and 5.0.5 for the Phe-Phe system. From: gromacs.org_gmx-users-boun...@maillist.sys.kth.se gromacs.org_gmx-users-boun...@maillist.sys.kth.se on behalf of Christopher Neale chris.ne...@alum.utoronto.ca Sent: 05 July

Re: [gmx-users] Why is there a difference between an angle of 0 or 180 deg. for a type 9 proper dihedral with multiplicity of 2?

2015-07-04 Thread Christopher Neale
Dear Justin: Thank you for your help. I am glad to see that I was not way out to lunch in my interpretation of multiplicity and proper dihedral angles. First, the out-of-plane motions are not minor. Even just in EM, the dihedral angles along the main ring convert from near 0 deg to about 50

Re: [gmx-users] Why is there a difference between an angle of 0 or 180 deg. for a type 9 proper dihedral with multiplicity of 2?

2015-07-04 Thread Justin Lemkul
On 7/4/15 3:32 AM, Christopher Neale wrote: Dear Gromacs users: I have been working on creating a topology for an exotic molecule. It contains aromatic rings and my parameters always seemed to allow the rings to buckle and become non-planer, much like a glucose ring would (though a little