From: Jérôme Hénin (jhenin_at_ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr)
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!
Best,
Jerome
On 5 September 2012 02:20, Sebastian Stolzenberg
<s.stolzenberg_at_gmail.com> 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 : Tue Dec 31 2013 - 23:22:31 CST