Quoting Robert Duke <rduke.email.unc.edu>:
>
> Fatima -
> I don't understand. Are you saying that you do two long umbrella sampling
> runs and get a slightly different result?
yes indeed
> That would probably be expected,
> even if you used the same software, but due to differences in rounding
> errors in different algorithms, could be higher in sander vs. pmemd.
> Somebody more familiar with the details of umbrella sampling may want to
> comment on this...
This was just a test to benchmark my simulation system.
I will have to use PMEMD .
thanks
Fatima
> Regards - Bob Duke
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <fatima.chami.durham.ac.uk>
> To: <amber.scripps.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:47 AM
> Subject: AMBER: output file format in SANDER.MPI & PMEMD
>
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I run Umbrella sampling simulation in both SANDER.MPI and PMEMD. I
> > realized that
> > the values of the restraint are different (diff. range 0.05 - 1.00)
> > although the
> > simulation system is literally the same.
> >
> > I suspect this to be inherent to SANDER and PMEMD numerical implementation
> >
> > best wishes
> > Fatima
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The AMBER Mail Reflector
> > To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
> > To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" (in the *body* of the email)
> > to majordomo.scripps.edu
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The AMBER Mail Reflector
> To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" (in the *body* of the email)
> to majordomo.scripps.edu
>
>
--
Dr. F.Chami
Science Lab.
Department of Chemistry
Durham University
South Road Durham, DH 1 4 LE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" (in the *body* of the email)
to majordomo.scripps.edu
Received on Sun Aug 31 2008 - 06:07:31 PDT
