On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:14:41 AM UTC+1, Christoph Junghans wrote:
>
> 2013/7/15  <[email protected] <javascript:>>: 
> > You mentioned "First, have a look at your ACI-ACI.dist.tgt again, this 
> > distribution 
> > doesn't go to one hence the potential doesn't go to 0 for large r. " 
> > 
> > RDF goes to 0 due to the fact that the system is heterogenous. However, 
> my 
> > potentials goes to 0 which is correct. 
> I meant, which potential you are referring to? 
>
> The potential of main force U=- k_B*Tlog(g(r)), which VOTCA uses as an 
> initial guess, doesn't got to 0, it goes to infinity: 
> U(g(r)->0)=-log(g(r)->0) -> inf 
>

ACI-ACI.pot.new ACI-ACI.pot.cur - Yes, you are right. But I cut my 
potentials at zero and extrapolate it. Then once provided to Votca the 
distributions still increase. Shall I provide a "fake" distribution so it 
goes to 1 so then Votca will be converging y distributions with the 
potential cut at zero?
 

>
> > 
> > Steven 
> > 
> > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 lipca 2013 21:27:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Christoph 
> > Junghans napisał: 
> >> 
> >> 2013/7/15  <[email protected]>: 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 lipca 2013 21:09:27 UTC+1 użytkownik 
> >> > [email protected] napisał: 
> >> >> 
> >> >> Thank you for this. For heterogenous system RDF does not go to 1 but 
> to 
> >> >> 0. 
> >> >> In this case I guess I need thousands of iterations... The system 
> input 
> >> >> are 
> >> >> 15 potentials which makes it so complicated. 
> >> >> 
> >> >> Steven 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > And to be clear: My potentials goes o zero at large r. 
> >> What do you mean? 
> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > Steven 
> >> > 
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> W dniu poniedziałek, 15 lipca 2013 17:44:46 UTC+1 użytkownik 
> Christoph 
> >> >> Junghans napisał: 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> 2013/7/15  <[email protected]>: 
> >> >>> > Votca is definitely wrong. If you take the example of maximum of 
> my 
> >> >>> > ACI-ACI.dist.tgt the maximum corresponds to 65.555. The potential 
> at 
> >> >>> > this 
> >> >>> > point should be: W = -2.49435*ln(65.55) = -10.433 and in my 
> >> >>> > ACI-ACI.dist.pot 
> >> >>> > the value corresponds to -16.1 - it is a huge difference and that 
> is 
> >> >>> > why my 
> >> >>> > further distributions are so huge.... 
> >> >>> No, Votca is 100% correct, and does what it is supposed to do. 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> First, have a look at your ACI-ACI.dist.tgt again, this 
> distribution 
> >> >>> doesn't go to one hence the potential doesn't go to 0 for large r. 
> >> >>> And that is mainly the reason why VOTCA cannot handle it, 
> >> >>> ACI-ACI.dist.tgt is not a common rdf! 
> >> >>> You will have to provide an initial guess (pot.in) to make it 
> work. 
> >> >>> (Please also read my email from July 10th again.) 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> Second, VOTCA does exactly what it is supposed to do. Go into 
> gnuplot 
> >> >>> and 
> >> >>> run: 
> >> >>> p [0:3][-20:5] "ACI-ACI.dist.tgt" u 1:(-2.49435*log($2)-5.7) w l, 
> >> >>> "ACI-ACI.pot.cur" w l 
> >> >>> Except for some small deviations, which come from the cubic spline 
> >> >>> interpolation, there is no difference in the curves. 
> >> >>> As Victor said before, VOTCA shifts the potential to be zero at the 
> >> >>> cutoff -> -10.433 - 5.7 = -16.1. This shift of 5.7 makes no 
> difference 
> >> >>> for the thermodynamics however. 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> Third, even pot.new is correct. Run 
> >> >>> $ paste ACI-ACI.dist.new <(sed '/^#/d' ACI-ACI.dist.tgt) <(sed 
> '/^#/d' 
> >> >>> ACI-ACI.pot.cur) > ACI-ACI.temp 
> >> >>> to generate a temp file. 
> >> >>> And go into gnuplot and plot: 
> >> >>> p [0:3][-20:5] "ACI-ACI.temp" u 1:(2.49435*log($2/$5)+$8-16.1) w l, 
> >> >>> "ACI-ACI.pot.new" w l 
> >> >>> There is basically no difference in the curves. 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> Conclusion: 
> >> >>> - check your distributions again 
> >> >>> - provide pot.in for the interaction, which don't have a "common" 
> rdf 
> >> >>> (meaning which doesn't go to 1) 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> Christoph 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> > 
> >> >>> > 
> >> >>> > 
> >> >>> > 
> >> >>> > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 lipca 2013 12:59:40 UTC+1 użytkownik 
> >> >>> > [email protected] napisał: 
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >> W dniu poniedziałek, 15 lipca 2013 12:42:37 UTC+1 użytkownik 
> Victor 
> >> >>> >> Rühle 
> >> >>> >> napisał: 
> >> >>> >>> 
> >> >>> >>> Dear Steven, 
> >> >>> >>> 
> >> >>> >>> provided the same kBT was used, I can think of two issues which 
> >> >>> >>> might 
> >> >>> >>> lead to these differences 
> >> >>> >>> 
> >> >>> >>> 1) votca can shift the potential, but the shape should match. 
> That 
> >> >>> >>> can in 
> >> >>> >>> particular happen if you cut the rdf in a region where there 
> are 
> >> >>> >>> still 
> >> >>> >>> modulations. 
> >> >>> >>> 2) What type of potential are you lookin at? For bonds and 
> angles, 
> >> >>> >>> there 
> >> >>> >>> is indeed a normalization necessary, see 
> >> >>> >>> 
> >> >>> >>> 
> >> >>> >>> 
> >> >>> >>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-4044(199802)49:2/3
> <61::AID-APOL61>3.0.CO;2-V 
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >> Thank you. I am looking at the nonbonded interactions only. The 
> >> >>> >> shape 
> >> >>> >> of 
> >> >>> >> the potential matches but the minima is lower than from my 
> >> >>> >> calulation. 
> >> >>> >> There 
> >> >>> >> is no normalization for non bonded so this is weird. I cut it at 
> >> >>> >> the 
> >> >>> >> begining as there were very small values and Votca was not able 
> to 
> >> >>> >> extrapolate it properly. 
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >>> 
> >> >>> >>> 
> >> >>> >>> Your second point indeed sounds a bit weired. Could you please 
> >> >>> >>> post 
> >> >>> >>> these 
> >> >>> >>> few curves to help debugging (i.e. the <name>.pot.cur, 
> >> >>> >>> <name>.pot.new 
> >> >>> >>> <name>.dist.tgt <name>.dist.new of the iteration 1 folder)? 
> >> >>> >>> 
> >> >>> >>> Victor 
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >> Please, see attached. 
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >>> 
> >> >>> >>> 
> >> >>> >>> 
> >> >>> >>> 2013/7/15 <[email protected]> 
> >> >>> >>>> 
> >> >>> >>>> Dear Votca Users, 
> >> >>> >>>> 
> >> >>> >>>> I have to issues with IBI: 
> >> >>> >>>> 
> >> >>> >>>> 1) I took one my ditributions and calculated on my own 
> potential 
> >> >>> >>>> W= 
> >> >>> >>>> -kBT 
> >> >>> >>>> ln(RDF) and I got different potential than Votca provide me. 
> For 
> >> >>> >>>> instance 
> >> >>> >>>> lets calculate the potential minimum for the distribution 
> maximum 
> >> >>> >>>> of 
> >> >>> >>>> 162. 
> >> >>> >>>> Pot = -.249435*ln(164) = -12.69. The minimum of Votca 
> potential 
> >> >>> >>>> corresponds 
> >> >>> >>>> to approximately -16 kJ/mol. Where I missed something? is it 
> >> >>> >>>> somehow 
> >> >>> >>>> normalized? 
> >> >>> >>>> 
> >> >>> >>>> 2) After 1st iteration my distribution was much higher than 
> the 
> >> >>> >>>> target 
> >> >>> >>>> one so I guess the potential should decrease but apparently 
> the 
> >> >>> >>>> new 
> >> >>> >>>> potential has deeper minima so the next distribution has a 
> even 
> >> >>> >>>> higer 
> >> >>> >>>> distribution. Could anyone please explain me this? 
> >> >>> >>>> 
> >> >>> >>>> Steven 
> >> >>> >>>> 
> >> >>> >>>> 
> >> >>> >>>> -- 
> >> >>> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the 
> >> >>> >>>> Google 
> >> >>> >>>> Groups "votca" group. 
> >> >>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from 
> it, 
> >> >>> >>>> send 
> >> >>> >>>> an email to [email protected]. 
> >> >>> >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 
> >> >>> >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/votca. 
> >> >>> >>>> For more options, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
> >> >>> >>>> 
> >> >>> >>>> 
> >> >>> >>> 
> >> >>> >>> 
> >> >>> > -- 
> >> >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the 
> Google 
> >> >>> > Groups 
> >> >>> > "votca" group. 
> >> >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
> >> >>> > send 
> >> >>> > an 
> >> >>> > email to [email protected]. 
> >> >>> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 
> >> >>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/votca. 
> >> >>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
>
> >> >>> > 
> >> >>> > 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> -- 
> >> >>> Christoph Junghans 
> >> >>> Web: http://www.compphys.de 
> >> > 
> >> > -- 
> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> >> > Groups 
> >> > "votca" group. 
> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
> send 
> >> > an 
> >> > email to [email protected]. 
> >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 
> >> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/votca. 
> >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Christoph Junghans 
> >> Web: http://www.compphys.de 
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups 
> > "votca" group. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an 
> > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. 
> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:>. 
>
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/votca. 
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
> > 
> > 
>
>
>
> -- 
> Christoph Junghans 
> Web: http://www.compphys.de 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"votca" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/votca.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to