On 2012-11-07 11:24, Volker Lesch wrote:
On 11/07/2012 11:19 AM, David van der Spoel wrote:
On 2012-11-07 10:21, Volker Lesch wrote:
Dear all,
I am a new Gromacs user. In the past I used AMBER, but because of
performance and technical reason I want to switch to Gromacs. Actually,
I have one big problem namely polarisation. In AMBER I used the atomic
point dipole model but this one is not implemented in Gromacs (please
correct me if I am wrong). Are there any experienced data which compare
the two models, atomic point dipole and shell??
Kind regards,
Volker
This is not implemented. The shell model works but with limited
functionality, such that the Charmm model does not work completely. It
would be interesting to have such a comparison although I expect few
significant differences.
Hallo,
thanks for this reply. So the shell model only works for simple systems
like water. Is this correct? What are the exact limitations?
Kind regards,
Volker
In Charmm there are additional terms for screening like the Thole
potential, which is implemented in gmx but not really debugged
thoroughly yet. However, the Charmm people also use some kind of
non-bonded screening that is not implemented.
--
David van der Spoel, Ph.D., Professor of Biology
Dept. of Cell & Molec. Biol., Uppsala University.
Box 596, 75124 Uppsala, Sweden. Phone: +46184714205.
sp...@xray.bmc.uu.se http://folding.bmc.uu.se
--
gmx-users mailing list gmx-users@gromacs.org
http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
* Please search the archive at
http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/Search before posting!
* Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
www interface or send it to gmx-users-requ...@gromacs.org.
* Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
