This is a MIME-encapsulated message
--==_16092620511401.ams1.ulsop.ac.uk==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Thanks for taking the time to look into this.
I was using in vacuo simulations intially, sorry for not saying, so the=
problem isn't with PME specifically.
I'm reluctant to start hacking the core subroutines of sander - as you say=
I would like a way to turn off non-bonded interactions entirely with some=
sort of exclusion list, but I don't know if this functionality exists or=
could be easily added.
I'll try your suggestions of using a tiny radius (and I think epsilon needs=
to be non zero as well) to prevent atom overlap -- that would probably be=
good enough for what I'm doing.
Thanks again
Dave
---- Message from Chris Moth <chris.moth.vanderbilt.edu> at 2004-04-21=
10:58:07 ------
>A bit more information perhaps:
>
>My vdw radii diea of course introduces undesired attractive forces... and=
I=20
>now have access to our sander source code...
>
>The non-bonded electrostatic interactions are tightly integrated into=20
>sander's pme implementation. I have found several 1.0/Rij^2 type terms
>in sander, but, not being a PME guru :), I don't see any quick and dirty=
way=20
>to modify the PME implementation to outright ignore atom centers.
>
>In ew_directp.h (included by ew_direct.f) there is this interesting piece=
of=20
>code - which I believe causes interactions outside the cutoff to be not=20
>included in the nonbonded calculations:
>
> if ( delr2 .lt. filter_cut2 )then
> icount =3D icount + 1
>
>You _might_ get away with modifying this to something like
>
> if ( delr2 .lt. filter_cut2 .and. delr2 .gt. .00001 )then
> icount =3D icount + 1
>
>but that is risky - given that I don't fully understand the pme=20
>implementation, and so it might have further unanticipated impacts.
>
>I also looked for a quick way to simply exclude your atoms from all=
non-bonded=20
>lists... but I did not find it and am out of time. That would be cleaner,=
I=20
>suspect.
>
>Couple of other ideas: You might also try pmemd from Robert Duke instead=
of=20
>sander. Perhaps it can better cope with the overlapping zero valued=
charges.
>
>If explcit solvent is not important, you might try using Generalized Born=
with=20
>sander. Then, the pme module is not called at all.
>
>If the problem is localised to just one pair of atoms, you could fudge=
things=20
>- and introduce a very small partial charge repulsion prior to the=
collision.
>
>Sorry to not have a better answer. Hope some of the more experienced
>folks can help you out.
>
>Chris Moth
>chris.moth.vanderbilt.edu
>
--==_16092620511401.ams1.ulsop.ac.uk==_
Content-Type: text/directory; charset="iso-8859-1"; profile="vcard"; name="david_evans.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="david_evans.vcf"
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:3.0
PRODID:-//Gordano//NONSGML GMS 9.02.3180//EN
REV:2004-01-22T09:31:19Z
FN:
N:;;;;
EMAIL;TYPE=3DINTERNET:david.evans.ulsop.ac.uk
END:VCARD
--==_16092620511401.ams1.ulsop.ac.uk==_--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to majordomo.scripps.edu
Received on Wed Apr 21 2004 - 17:53:00 PDT
