Re: typo/my flawed thinking on "alchVdwLambdaEnd"?

From: Jérôme Hénin (
Date: Wed Sep 05 2012 - 08:13:45 CDT

Hi Sebastian,

This looks like an unfortunate case of copy-and-paste (from the
electrostatics section) that has not been properly amended to suit its
new context. Thanks for catching and reporting it!


On 5 September 2012 02:20, Sebastian Stolzenberg
<> wrote:
> Dear NAMD FEP experts,
> I haven't found this question in the thread:
> In the latest NAMD manual 2.9, I read the section about "alchVdwLambdaEnd"
> and compare whatever is stated to the figure (the one titled
> "decoupling"&"mutation").
> Everything makes sense, until I read the last sentence:
> "For lambda values greater than or equal to (1 - alchVdwLambdaEnd), vdW
> interactions of the annihilated particle are fully decoupled from the
> simulation."
> however, in the "mutation" panel, I see that vDW is >0 for lambda with
> 1>lambda>(1 - alchVdwLambdaEnd) (i.e. for "lambda^{down}_{LJ}")
> Is this a typo?, i.e. should it say "linearly decoupled" instead of "fully
> decoupled"? If no, is there a flaw in my thinking, based on what I wrote
> above?
> Many thanks for your help,
> Best,
> Sebastian

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Mon Dec 31 2012 - 23:22:02 CST