[gmx-users] Anybody using Silica InterfaceFF on Gromacs?
mark.j.abraham at gmail.com
Mon Jul 3 02:04:05 CEST 2017
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 2:46 AM Alex <nedomacho at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> He he, childish :)
> > David, no offense intended. I just think that when applied to solids, the
> entire concept of what works so well for biomolecular systems becomes a bit
> of a joke. And vice versa, to be fair. Spoken from experience, really -- we
> here used Gromacs to simulate things that I keep telling people not to
> simulate with Gromacs, and it got published!. :)
Sure - one should use a tool capable of doing the job, and use its optional
capabilities accordingly. Choosing non-bonded exclusions based on bonds, in
a way that does not implement the intended model physics, is indeed wrong,
but that doesn't make the use of modified 1-4 pair interactions "childish"
in general ;-)
> In any case, I second what was said above re: # of exclusions. Solid-state
> potentials use smooth drop-offs to exclude long-range interactions between
> close neighbor sharing elements, so looking into David's suggestion may in
> fact fix the issues immediately.
So, for the record, the actual issue is that GROMACS does not implement
some kind of tapering of non-bonded interactions that would apply between
particle pairs at short range?
> Gromacs Users mailing list
> * Please search the archive at
> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before
> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
> * For (un)subscribe requests visit
> https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users or
> send a mail to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users