On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 5:01 AM Victor Nazarychev <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear Cristoph,
>
> Thank you for your help.
>
> среда, 9 ноября 2022 г. в 22:52:45 UTC+3, Christoph Junghans:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 11:48 AM Victor Nazarychev <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Votca users,
>> >
>> > I try to parametrize the non-bonded intecations in CG model using the ibi 
>> > procedure for graphene molecules. However, when I build nanocomposite 
>> > comprises polymer and graphene flakes is atomostic simulation stacks are 
>> > formed between the graphene flakes. In this case, the target pair 
>> > distribution function between CG atoms in graphene falls to 1 only on the 
>> > end of box. please see the attached file.
>> >
>> > If I undesrtand it is imposible to acurate calculate potential between the 
>> > atoms in stacks using ibi procedure due to the fact the rdf does not fall 
>> > to one.
>> There are re-weighting techniques for these kind of systems, e.g. see
>> https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4742067
>>
> I have a couple of clarifying questions. I did not find re-weighting 
> techniques in the VOTCA, as I understand this approach has not been 
> implemented yet?
Correct and most likely it will never get added. You will have to
overwrite the RDF calculator script with something that works for your
special case.

>
>>
>> > However, could I calculate in some case this like potential for CG model 
>> > with help of the force-matching?
>> I think force-matching could work as well.
>>
>
> If I use bonded potentials calculated by the ibi procedure, will calculating 
> only nonbonded potentials with the help of force-matching be correct for my 
> model? Or should I parametrize bonded and non-bonded potential together by 
> means of force-matching?

That depends on the system, so I don't know.
We mixed IB/IBI with force-matching in this paper
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mats.201100011 and it worked, but that isn't
a guarantee it will work for your system.
IBI reproduces the effective PMF while FM reproduces the average
force, which is not always the same.

Christoph

>
> Best regards,
> Victor
>
>>
>> Christoph
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Victor
>> >
>> > --
>> > Join us on Slack: https://join.slack.com/t/votca/signup
>> > ---
>> > 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/votca/965daf19-3386-4355-8547-e651605e49b8n%40googlegroups.com.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christoph Junghans
>> Web: http://www.compphys.de
>
> --
> Join us on Slack: https://join.slack.com/t/votca/signup
> ---
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/votca/fc03698e-076d-4702-8a3a-3c956bc3e079n%40googlegroups.com.



-- 
Christoph Junghans
Web: http://www.compphys.de

-- 
Join us on Slack: https://join.slack.com/t/votca/signup
--- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/votca/CAHG27e6nbZXSt17gPHgsHnOe8ySouq-1OS2BB4CsgANGwYiBwA%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to