Re: [gmx-users] Re: force autocorrelation

We specialise in building trees, unfortunately :) On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Keith wrote: > Thanks, couldn't see the wood for the trees. Clear as daylight now. > > > On 11/12/12 19:39, Mark Abraham wrote: > > Yes. Read about analysis groups in chapter 8. > > > > Mark > > > > On Tue, Dec 11

Re: [gmx-users] Re: force autocorrelation

Thanks, couldn't see the wood for the trees. Clear as daylight now. On 11/12/12 19:39, Mark Abraham wrote: > Yes. Read about analysis groups in chapter 8. > > Mark > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:20 PM, khuws wrote: > > >> Thanks, >> I forgot to mention that I need the force autocorrelation for

Re: [gmx-users] Re: force autocorrelation

Yes. Read about analysis groups in chapter 8. Mark On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:20 PM, khuws wrote: > Thanks, > I forgot to mention that I need the force autocorrelation for the forces > acting on a single atom. Will the method > > 1. Run mdrun with nstfout set appropriately > 2. g_traj -h > 3. g_

[gmx-users] Re: force autocorrelation

Thanks, I forgot to mention that I need the force autocorrelation for the forces acting on a single atom. Will the method 1. Run mdrun with nstfout set appropriately 2. g_traj -h 3. g_analyze -h work here Keith -- View this message in context: http://gromacs.5086.n6.nabble.com/force-autoc