Am I right? Please answer this because I am an undergraduate student and this will clear my misconception, if any. :)
Thanks in advance.
-
Karamyog.
On 5/18/06, Mark Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
karamyog singh wrote:
> Well, I am back. Remember my first and second mdruns. In my second,
> after stablizing my initial configuration in the 1st md run, I used cut
> off upto 6.3 whereas the potential minima is at 0.309. 6.3 is quite
> large a distance compared to 0.309. In the second run, the kinetic
> energy increases which is correct but the total energy doesnt seem to
> remain constant even when there are 3 million steps involved.
Why is increasing KE correct?
> How is this constant energy mode? KE increases(accepted) but the total
> never seems to be constant. I cant keep increasing my no. of steps.
> moreover how can so many vibrations be introduced at a temp. of 0.001 K.
It's well known (as I said a few emails ago) that cut-offs in NVE will
cause system heating - that's why people tend to use NVT if they are
using cut-offs. Expected NVE behaviour for this sort of system as a
function of cut-off is outside my experience, but you can use g_energy
to judge how fast KE and thus total energy is increasing as a function
of simulation time. If that rate varies with the cutoff, then I'd say
there's the problem.
Mark
_______________________________________________
gmx-users mailing list gmx-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.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
_______________________________________________ gmx-users mailing list gmx-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.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
