[gmx-users] equilibrium for box of simulation
mra_bu at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 5 08:12:23 CEST 2012
Yes, you're right. Excuse me, for this and thank you for your reminder.
May I know your idea about cause of my doubt, Please?
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Abraham <Mark.Abraham at anu.edu.au>
To: Discussion list for GROMACS users <gmx-users at gromacs.org>
Sent: Friday, October 5, 2012 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [gmx-users] equilibrium for box of simulation
On 5/10/2012 3:55 PM, mohammad agha wrote:
> Dear Justin,
> Thank you very much.
> So, decreasing of box dimensions is not bad, if all thing process natural, yes?
> The cause of my doubt was because of in the most of articles was said for example " we select box with dimensions 10nm that after equilibrium was converted to 11nm" and I didn't see the report of decreasing of box dimensions! May I know your idea about it, Please?
Following a published method closely and observing an opposite result is a cause for concern. You have to judge "closely," however. You should have said earlier this was one of your reasons for doubt, rather than leave us to guess. The quality of the help you might receive is often in direct proportion to the quantity of relevant information you give in asking for it.
-- gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org
* 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
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users