Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

qcalc: qangle energies too high #21

Open
fabstm opened this issue Mar 14, 2016 · 4 comments
Open

qcalc: qangle energies too high #21

fabstm opened this issue Mar 14, 2016 · 4 comments

Comments

@fabstm
Copy link

fabstm commented Mar 14, 2016

Calculated angle energies of qangles are too high. Energies for non qatoms look reasonable.

`========================= List of defined calculations ========================
1 angle, qangle energy between atoms 1981, 1984, 1985
2 angle, qangle energy between atoms 1986, 4872, 4875
3 angle, angle energy between atoms 4878, 4875, 4872

----------------------------- Calculation results ----------------------------

file frame 1:angle(�) 2:angle(�) 3:angle(�) V_angle
fep_050_0.000.dcd,frames=every 10
/User...50_0.000.dcd 10 118.26 165.12 106.15 92.64 115.56 0.70`

example_files.zip

@acmnpv
Copy link
Contributor

acmnpv commented Mar 14, 2016

Fix will be uploaded, new values after change below. Also fix for format
file frame 1:angle(Deg) V_angle 2:angle(Deg) V_angle 3:angle(Deg) V_angle
fep_050_0.000.dcd 1 116.86 0.31 111.13 0.03 109.64 0.00

@esguerra
Copy link
Member

What fix?
Even though I'm using the topology and parameters from Geir the values with the old qcalc seem reasonable .

fep_050_0.000.dcd 10 118.26 0.03 104.45 XX.X 115.56 0.70

Note that a potential value for the second angle is not reported.

It might be an issue with the topologies and parameters you're using.

You can also use ca in qprep.

@acmnpv
Copy link
Contributor

acmnpv commented Mar 14, 2016

Fix is for angles redefined by a FEP file, your old version does not use it and gives the energies for the topology angles. This was missing in the issue report.

@esguerra
Copy link
Member

Ahh! OK. That explains it much better.
Thanks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants