15, 20, even 30 nm all result in the same effect, just
at different rates. I didn't try anything larger than
that - several of my systems would be dangerously
close to being under 2x the cutoff radius across if I
went even slightly higher.
--- Eric Jakobsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is
What is your van der Waals cut-off distance? From our experience
years ago, we sometimes saw this if our van der Waals cut-off was too
short; i.e., less than 15 angstroms. That seems long, since it falls
off as sixth power, but because the long-range van der Waals is all
attractive, there is n
pme.c has already been patched - I've been caught out
on that previously. I tried pme_order=4 anyway, just
in case - it didn't help.
--- Mark Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan Dodd wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > I've been having some trouble recently with the
> > leaflets in my bilayer gently
Alan Dodd wrote:
Hello all,
I've been having some trouble recently with the
leaflets in my bilayer gently drifting apart over a
period of a few hundred picoseconds. Increasing the
vdW radius hasn't helped (up to 2nm), although it did
delay the seperation. Likewise, increasing tau_p from
5 up to
Hello all,
I've been having some trouble recently with the
leaflets in my bilayer gently drifting apart over a
period of a few hundred picoseconds. Increasing the
vdW radius hasn't helped (up to 2nm), although it did
delay the seperation. Likewise, increasing tau_p from
5 up to 10. The really bi
5 matches
Mail list logo
