Re: [AMBER] Amber and Short Bonds

--
Jason M. Swails
Quantum Theory Project,
University of Florida
Ph.D. Candidate
352-392-4032
On Mar 26, 2012, at 7:18 PM, "Aronica, Pietro" <pietro.aronica07.imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Also, make sure you haven't drastically increased the bond force
>> constants. The values used are right at the edge of stability.  The fact
>> that you have to go to shorter time steps suggests that you boosted the
>> force constants for some reason...
> 
> Hello,
> no, the force constants are those of "normal" bonds, standard values of CT-CT and CT-HC. The only thing I've changed is the equilibrium bond length.
> ________________________________________
> From: amber-bounces.ambermd.org [amber-bounces.ambermd.org] on behalf of Thomas Cheatham [tec3.utah.edu]
> Sent: 26 March 2012 21:21
> To: jason.swails.gmail.com; AMBER Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [AMBER] Amber and Short Bonds
> 
>> The equilibrium bond distances should have little effect on the
>> stability of your simulation, I would think.  You don't have to worry
>> about VDW and EEL clashes between bonded pairs (since those interactions
>> are excluded from bond/angle partners).
> 
> Also, make sure you haven't drastically increased the bond force
> constants. The values used are right at the edge of stability.  The fact
> that you have to go to shorter time steps suggests that you boosted the
> force constants for some reason...
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber