I believe Dave is right here
Tom D
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, David A. Case wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006, Lorenzo Gontrani wrote:
>
>> Dear amber users, I am building the topology of a molecule with several
>> explicit lone pairs (around C=O fragments). I was wondering if anyone knows
>> why all the PKDIV values of lone-pair torsions are set to zero (parm99).
>> Maybe it is a stupid question..lone pairs are "kept" by BOND and ANGLE
>> parameters, they are enough..
>
> Lone pairs are kept "in place" by rigid body constraints, and always move
> synchonously with the heavy atoms they are attached to. The bond and angle
> force constants involving them are ignored, but the equilibrium bond lengths
> and angles are used to set the corresponding distances and angles. I believe
> that all of the torsion parameters involving lone pairs are ignored.
> (Tom Darden can chime in here if this is not correct....)
>
> ...dac
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The AMBER Mail Reflector
> To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to majordomo.scripps.edu
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to majordomo.scripps.edu
Received on Wed Oct 25 2006 - 06:07:16 PDT
