Re: [gmx-users] The sum of the two largest charge group radii ..is larger than rlist

Ok Thank you. Regards Kavya On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Justin Lemkul wrote: > > > On 8/6/13 2:35 AM, Kavyashree M wrote: > >> Dear users, >> >> >> After EM step while running NVT I gor a warning saying - >> >> Largest charge group radii for Van der Waals: 3.798, 1.293 nm >> Largest charge

Re: [gmx-users] The sum of the two largest charge group radii ..is larger than rlist

On 8/6/13 2:35 AM, Kavyashree M wrote: Dear users, After EM step while running NVT I gor a warning saying - Largest charge group radii for Van der Waals: 3.798, 1.293 nm Largest charge group radii for Coulomb: 7.565, 3.798 nm The sum of the two largest charge group radii (11.362685) is

[gmx-users] The sum of the two largest charge group radii ..is larger than rlist

Dear users, After EM step while running NVT I gor a warning saying - Largest charge group radii for Van der Waals: 3.798, 1.293 nm Largest charge group radii for Coulomb: 7.565, 3.798 nm The sum of the two largest charge group radii (11.362685) is larger than rlist (1.40) But this e

[gmx-users] The sum of the two largest charge group radii is larger than rlist - rvdw (because rlist < rvdw)

Dear Joakim: I've started bilayer simulations with both of the new conditions that you mentioned. Thank you for the advice ans references. I am surprised to hear that the bilayer features are similar with different vdw cutoffs (although I'll check also). Perhaps this is an unexpected win for di

Re: [gmx-users] The sum of the two largest charge group radii is larger than rlist - rvdw (because rlist < rvdw)

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Christopher Neale < chris.ne...@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Dear users: > > I am experimenting with the "Stockholm" lipid parameters (Slipids). I > downloaded the recommended .mdp file from the developers of this force > field ( http://people.su.se/~jjm/Stockholm_Li