[gmx-developers] What is dH/dl functional for Coulomb interaction?
ggroenh at gwdg.de
Tue Jun 24 09:05:28 CEST 2008
Explicit lambda dependence comes in if the charges of both atoms
involved inthe interaction are scaled by lambda. What I suspect is
that you have no interactions within the QM subsystem (i atoms), and
there is only interaction between the perturbed i aotms and the
environment atoms j.
Do you use QM/MM, or is the name QM system just chosen like that?
only between interactions o
On 24 Jun 2008, at 02:35, Leontyev Igor wrote:
> Dear gmx-developers,
> I am confused by the fact that dhdl-values calculated with the same
> molecular structure for different values of the Coulomb interaction
> parameter lambda (L) does not depend on the lambda. According to the
> 3.3 Manual the L-dependence of Coulomb part of Hamiltonian has form
> given by
> Eq.(4.103) such as dH(L)/dL should explicitly depend on lambda.
> However, my
> tests show opposite. I have tried to calculate a charging free
> energy of
> QM-system (solute) for two different systems:
> 1) QM-system (solute) in protein. The QM-system consist of metal
> alone with imidozole rings of ligating residues (35 atoms) and the
> is represented by 11938 atoms. The QM-system has non-zero atomic
> charges in
> both the initial and final states. Total charge difference of the
> between final and initial state is -1.
> 2) Solute alone (no solvent). The model QM-system is constituted by
> point charges separated by 1nm . Point charges have values (0,0) in
> initial state and (-1,1) in the final state.
> The independence of dhdl-values on the parameter lambda (L) was
> observed for
> both systems. For the model system (2 point charges), dhdl-values
> can be
> calculated manually. According to Eq. (4.103), H(L)=f/
> H(L)=-138.935*L*L (1)
> However, results obtained by Gromacs 3.3.2 are not described by the
> functional (1). The results are:
> L Potential energy dhdl
> 0.00000 0.00000e+00 -1.38935e+02
> 0.50000 -6.94677e+01 -1.38935e+02
> 1.00000 -1.38935e+02 -1.38935e+02
> It is interesting to notice that these results are precisely
> described by
> the conventional functional form for Coulomb coupling:
> H(L)=HA+L*(HB-HA), (2)
> where HB and HA are Hamiltonians in the final and initial states,
> respectively. Thus, could someone confirm that the Coulomb coupling
> implemented in Gromacs is given by functional (2) instead of
> fuctional given
> by Eqs (4.103)-(4.106) of the Manual ?
> gmx-developers mailing list
> gmx-developers at gromacs.org
> Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the www
> interface or send it to gmx-developers-request at gromacs.org.
MPI biophysical chemistry
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-developers