[gmx-users] Surface tension readings in NVT vs NPT simulations

Denny Frost dsfrost at cableone.net
Sat Mar 12 17:28:55 CET 2011


No, it requires six, acutally, for aniisotropic coupling.  I decided to use
semi-isotropic coupling with the xy compressibilities set to 4.5e-15 (it
won't accept 0).  This should keep the walls parallel to the z axis from
moving and accomplish the same thing.  Does this sound right?

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:24 AM, David van der Spoel
<spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se>wrote:

> On 2011-03-12 17.17, Denny Frost wrote:
>
>> Thanks for answering that question about dispersion, that makes sense.
>> Also, The values I currently get with NPT are around 58 mN/m, while the
>> average values I get for NVT are around 16 mN/m, but with a variance of
>> nearly 100% of that value.  I'm beginning to see why you only do
>> pressure coupling in the z direction, but gromacs 4.5.3 won't let you
>> specify tau_p = 0.  Any other way to do pressure coupling in just the z
>> direction?
>>
> check manual.
> maybe there is only one tau_p value.
>
>> Denny
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Denny Frost <dsfrost at cableone.net
>> <mailto:dsfrost at cableone.net>> wrote:
>>
>>    Is that using anisotropic pressure coupling?
>>
>>
>>    On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 8:55 AM, David van der Spoel
>>    <spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se <mailto:spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se>> wrote:
>>
>>        On 2011-03-12 16.45, Denny Frost wrote:
>>
>>            I have run NPT simulations using isotropic and semiisotropic
>>            coupling
>>            with the same results.  I have never done coupling in just
>>            one direction
>>            though, how do you do this?.  I have never used Dispersion
>>            corrections.
>>            It seems to me that this would help, rather than hurt though
>>            since, as
>>            Aldi said, it will make the system closer to experimental
>>            values.  I
>>            will give this a try and see what happens.  My question
>>            still remains -
>>            why do NPT and NVT simulations give such different values
>>            for surface
>>            tension?
>>            Denny Frost
>>
>>
>>        You don't give any values so it is hard to judge.
>>        - NVT may have completely wrong pressure
>>        - Dispersion correction assumes a homogeneous system as regards
>>        the average disperson constant per volume, which you probably do
>>        not have. E.g. in an ice/water surface dispersion correction may
>>        induce melting.
>>
>>        The dispersion correction is *not* to bring your system closer
>>        to experiment but rather to correct for the use of a cut-off.
>>
>>        - Coupling in one direction: specify e.g.
>>        ref-p = 0 0 1
>>        compressibility = 0 0 4e-5
>>        tau_p = 0 0 5
>>
>>
>>            On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 6:40 AM, aldi asmadi
>>            <aldi.asmadi at gmail.com <mailto:aldi.asmadi at gmail.com>
>>            <mailto:aldi.asmadi at gmail.com
>>            <mailto:aldi.asmadi at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>                David,
>>
>>                I have a question that is still related to your reply.
>>              If the bulk
>>                liquid NPT and the interfacial liquid-vapor NVT
>>            simulations are
>>                performed using dispersion corrections to the pressure
>>            and energy,
>>                while the intefacial liquid-liquid NPAT simulation don't
>>            use any
>>                correction, can we say that all results are valid since
>>            we don't give
>>                the same treatment for all systems?
>>
>>                In the NPT and NVT calculations, we apply corrections in
>>            order to
>>                reduce the discrepancy between the calculated and
>>            experimental
>>                properties (say density and surface tension) as small as
>>            possible.
>>                Here we have more confidence that our molecules in
>>            systems behave
>>                accordingly judging from the macroscopic values we
>>            obtain.  Meanwhile,
>>                in the NPAT calculation, we don't use such correction
>>            meaning that the
>>                property (say interfacial tension) is expected to
>>            deviate more from
>>                the experimental value? This indicates that the system
>>            behaves
>>                differently in comparison to the same simulation
>>            conducted with
>>                correction?
>>
>>                Many thanks,
>>                Aldi
>>
>>
>>                On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 11:44 AM, David van der Spoel
>>            <spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se <mailto:spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se>
>>            <mailto:spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se <mailto:spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se>>>
>>
>>            wrote:
>>             > On 2011-03-12 06.09, Denny Frost wrote:
>>             >>
>>             >> I am running MD simulations on Liquid/Liquid interfaces and
>>                measuring
>>             >> the interfacial tension between them.  I have found that
>> the
>>                readings in
>>             >> NVT simulations are close to experimental values, but
>>            have a lot of
>>             >> variation.  I run NPT simulations on the exact same
>>            system and
>>                find the
>>             >> results show very little variation, but the values are
>>            far from
>>             >> experimental results.  Does anyone know why this happens?
>>             >>
>>             > Please be more specific. How do you do NPT simulations?
>>            This may
>>                influence
>>             > the result. To get good result I would suggest to do
>> pressure
>>                coupling only
>>             > in the normal direction and to turn off dispersion
>>            corrections to the
>>             > pressure.
>>             >
>>             > --
>>             > David van der Spoel, Ph.D., Professor of Biology
>>             > Dept. of Cell & Molec. Biol., Uppsala University.
>>             > Box 596, 75124 Uppsala, Sweden. Phone:  +46184714205.
>>             > spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se <mailto:spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se>
>>            <mailto:spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se <mailto:spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se>>
>>
>>
>>            http://folding.bmc.uu.se
>>             > --
>>             > gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
>>            <mailto:gmx-users at gromacs.org>
>>            <mailto:gmx-users at gromacs.org <mailto:gmx-users at gromacs.org>>
>>
>>
>>             > http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
>>             > Please search the archive at
>>             > http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/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
>>            <mailto:gmx-users-request at gromacs.org>
>>            <mailto:gmx-users-request at gromacs.org
>>            <mailto:gmx-users-request at gromacs.org>>.
>>
>>             > Can't post? Read
>> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
>>             >
>>                --
>>                gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
>>            <mailto:gmx-users at gromacs.org>
>>            <mailto:gmx-users at gromacs.org <mailto:gmx-users at gromacs.org>>
>>
>>
>>            http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
>>                Please search the archive at
>>            http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/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
>>            <mailto:gmx-users-request at gromacs.org>
>>            <mailto:gmx-users-request at gromacs.org
>>            <mailto:gmx-users-request at gromacs.org>>.
>>
>>                Can't post? Read
>>            http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>        --
>>        David van der Spoel, Ph.D., Professor of Biology
>>        Dept. of Cell & Molec. Biol., Uppsala University.
>>        Box 596, 75124 Uppsala, Sweden. Phone:  +46184714205.
>>        spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se <mailto:spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se>
>>        http://folding.bmc.uu.se
>>        --
>>        gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
>>        <mailto:gmx-users at gromacs.org>
>>        http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
>>        Please search the archive at
>>        http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/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
>>        <mailto:gmx-users-request at gromacs.org>.
>>        Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> David van der Spoel, Ph.D., Professor of Biology
> Dept. of Cell & Molec. Biol., Uppsala University.
> Box 596, 75124 Uppsala, Sweden. Phone:  +46184714205.
> spoel at xray.bmc.uu.se    http://folding.bmc.uu.se
> --
> gmx-users mailing list    gmx-users at gromacs.org
> http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users
> Please search the archive at
> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/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/Support/Mailing_Lists
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://maillist.sys.kth.se/pipermail/gromacs.org_gmx-users/attachments/20110312/a196f15b/attachment.html>


More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users mailing list