[gmx-users] FENE potential
mark.abraham at anu.edu.au
Tue Dec 12 01:35:57 CET 2006
> First of all in the gromacs manual 3.2, that i have on page 51 there is
> the LJ and Buckingham potential and in chapter 4.2.4 (page 58) the
> harmonic potential is discussed, so page 51 and chapter 4.2.4 talk about
> different things.
That would be why it would be good for you to be looking in the current
version of the manual, version 3.3, where 4.2.4 is on page 51 and refers
to FENE. This makes it look like FENE was a new introduction in 3.3, and
is a great general reason why people should be using current versions of
software except with a clear scientific reason not to.
Further, table 5.4 describes how to implement FENE in a topology.
> Third Mark and Tsjerk you must be more careful, specific and polite in
> your answers you give, especially when you don't know what you are talking
> about, not try to get rid of someone, make sure first that you understand
> and have the right answer, otherwise it is better not to
Please check your assumptions here... we're expecting a basic level of
competence in users attempting to solve their own problems. We both
expressed our frustration at the regular occurrence of someone posting a
query to this mailing list that is clearly covered in the available
documentation. We're under no obligation to do anybody's work for them,
and it annoys people when others expect them to do things for free when
some basic attention would have prevented the need for the inquiry.
Please have a look at "How to ask questions the smart way" here
http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html, to see how questions like
several you have posted here are likely to elicit less-than-helpful
responses from knowledgeable users on groups such as this one.
Both of our initial replies were more helpful than I think the care that
went into the construction of your query merited. My initial reply
suggested how to get a more useful response to your inquiry, and Tsjerk
gave you a specific answer. I do concede that my subsequent reply to him
was an unnecessary tongue-in-cheek cheap shot.
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users