Re:

From: Chris Harrison (charris5_at_gmail.com)
Date: Mon Oct 31 2011 - 15:24:19 CDT

Yes. In NAMD the forceConstant is K and not K/2. In WHAM the
forceConstant supplied should be K and not K/2.

Best,
Chris

--
Chris Harrison, Ph.D.
Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group
NIH Resource for Macromolecular Modeling and Bioinformatics
Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
University of Illinois, 405 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
char_at_ks.uiuc.edu                          Voice: 773-570-0329 
http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/~char              Fax:   217-244-6078
Buddhadev Maiti <bmaiti_at_gsu.edu> writes:
> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 03:14:30 +0000
> From: Buddhadev Maiti <bmaiti_at_gsu.edu>
> To: "namd-l_at_ks.uiuc.edu" <namd-l_at_ks.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: namd-l: 
> 
> Dear Conultant,
> 
> Thank your very much for your kind reply. Now it is clear for me that forceConstant reprents K and 1/2 term included into the potential. Could you please give me one more answer, in WHAM calculation using Alan Grossfield code, do I need to use same forceContant value from umbrella sampling, it will be great help for me.
> 
> Have a nice weekend,
> 
> Thanks again,
> Maiti

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Wed Feb 29 2012 - 05:24:31 CST