Re: [AMBER] Why the entropy contribution from quasi-harmonic and normal mode methods are so different?
This message
: [
Message body
] [ More options (
top
,
bottom
) ]
Related messages
: [
Next message
] [
Previous message
] [
In reply to
]
Contemporary messages sorted
: [
by date
] [
by thread
] [
by subject
] [
by author
] [
by messages with attachments
]
From
: wliu <
wliu.itcs.ecnu.edu.cn
>
Date
: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 12:19:47 +0800
Thanks, Hannes. I know much more physics about they. I will use the
normal mode method, I think it is more reasonable at 300K.
Liu Wei
On 2015-07-01 17:52, Hannes Loeffler wrote:
>
http://archive.ambermd.org/201207/0319.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Received on
Wed Jul 01 2015 - 21:30:02 PDT
This message
: [
Message body
]
Next message
:
ANWESHA SARKAR: "[AMBER] Ambertools15 installation without Amber"
Previous message
:
Ross Walker: "Re: [AMBER] anisotropic vs. semi-isotropic membrane simulations"
In reply to
:
Hannes Loeffler: "Re: [AMBER] Why the entropy contribution from quasi-harmonic and normal mode methods are so different?"
Contemporary messages sorted
: [
by date
] [
by thread
] [
by subject
] [
by author
] [
by messages with attachments
]
Custom Search