<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<br><br>> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:15:05 +1100<br>> From: Mark.Abraham@anu.edu.au<br>> To: gmx-users@gromacs.org<br>> Subject: Re: [gmx-users] Energy Conservation with 4fs timestep<br>> <br>> Joe Joe wrote:<br>> > Hi,<br>> > <br>> > I get good conservation when running NVE in gromacs with 4 fs when I use <br>> > PME-switch for electrostatics but not so good when I use switch. Any <br>> > thoughts why that would be? Params shown below.<br>> <br>> Finite cutoffs (such as used with "switch") are intrinsically unlikely <br>> to conserve energy.<br>> <br>> Mark<br><br>That is not right.<br>Finite cut-off's such as switch and shift are purposely designed to conserve energy.<br>Switch is not particularly good though, since the switching introduces large forces.<br>I would advise to use PME-switch or reaction-field-zero for electrostatics and shift for vdw.<br><br>But the main problem in your setup seems to be the 0.1 nm buffer between the cut-off<br>and rlist. In general you will need a buffer of 0.25 to 0.3 nm.<br>You can use rlist=-1 to get exact integration and then vary rlist to get a reasonable<br>neighborlist update frequency (somewhere around 10 steps).<br>We should automate the choice of rlist such that the user does not need to worry<br>about this.<br><br>Berk<br><br><br><br><br /><hr />Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! <a href='http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/' target='_new'>MSN Messenger</a></body>
</html>