[gmx-users] RF and TI
gmx3 at hotmail.com
Fri Dec 4 13:57:40 CET 2009
Yes, RF in the couple scheme is correct.
The "manual" calculation you did is incorrect.
In the decoupled state the intra-molecular interactions of the decoupled
molecule should not be RF, but plain Coulomb.
The couple option does this correctly.
> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:52:58 +0300
> From: ale.odinokov at gmail.com
> To: gmx-users at gromacs.org
> Subject: [gmx-users] RF and TI
> Dear gmx users,
> I calculated the hydration free energy of benzene molecule two times.
> First time I used a decoupling method implemented in GROMACS. Second
> time I performed thermodynamical integration between different
> topologies of the benzene molecule: non-interacting with media and
> normal one. All intramolecular interactions were turned off. The
> results were different: decoupling method gave energies about 2.8
> kcal/mol higher. I investigated the problem and found that the
> difference of the <dH/dl> values was due to the Reaction-field term.
> When I switched electrostatic to the simple cut-off scheme, decoupling
> method gave almost the same result, while for dual topology method the
> result increased on 2-3 kcal/mol.
> Is the RF method consistent with free energy calculations? Can it be
> treated within the frames of decoupling scheme?
> gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
> Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/search before posting!
> Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
> www interface or send it to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
> Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users