From: Jim (jim.jim.strong_at_gmail.com)
Date: Fri Apr 28 2017 - 20:25:57 CDT
I want to obtain free energy profiles of passages of molecules through
nanopore systems immersed in an external electric field. I can use
different free energy sampling schemes (cv-SMD/Jarzynski, (*)ABF, US,
US-REMD, etc) to obtain PMFs. I have a couple questions related to that and
to new NAMD releases:
1. Is there a method that is preferred (aiming at quantitative accuracy
while possibly ignoring computational costs)?
- a) For example, in regard to ABF, what can (and should) be used in the
current NAMD version 2.12 (or CVS 2.13): ABF vs eABF vs on-the-fly eABF vs
gABF vs egABF vs ...?
I get confused between all these flavors and their applicability to the
particular problem/system of interest.
2. Release notes of NAMD 2.12 in regard to Collective Variable Module:
while a message from the mailing list from Mar 2015 reads:
This confuses me. If I want to go ahead with *new* ABF simulations under
external electric field (that will affect *all* atoms in the simulation box
regardless of CV), what should or should I not do to ensure accurate final
3. Again from the release notes:
- "Scripting command "cvcflags" to optimize performance of complex
I don't understand where and how the command "cvsflags" is and can be used.
Is there an example usage?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Mon Dec 31 2018 - 23:20:15 CST