--- trunk/electrostaticMethodsPaper/SupportingInfo.tex	2006/03/20 15:43:13	2641
+++ trunk/electrostaticMethodsPaper/SupportingInfo.tex	2006/03/20 15:52:52	2642
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ This document includes system based comparisons of the
 
 \section{\label{app-water}Liquid Water}
 
-500 liquid state configurations were generated as described in the Methods section using the SPC/E model of water.\cite{Berendsen87} The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:spceTabTMag}.
+500 liquid state configurations were generated as described in the Methods section using the SPC/E model of water.\cite{Berendsen87} The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:spceMag}.  The force and torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:spceAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
 \begin{table}[htbp]
    \centering
    \caption{Regression results for the liquid water system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}	
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.989 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.
 RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.989 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.999 \\
       \bottomrule
    \end{tabular}
-   \label{tab:spceTabTMag}
+   \label{tab:spceMag}
 \end{table}
 
 Unless there is a significant change in result in any of the further systems, we are going to neglect to comment on the pure cutoff (PC) system.  It is unreasonable to expect it to perform well in either energetic or dynamic studies using molecular groups, as evidenced in previous studies and in the results displayed here and in the rest of this paper.\cite{Adams79,Steinbach94} In contrast to PC, the {\sc sp} method shows variety in the results.  In the weakly and undamped cases, the results are poor for both the energy gap and dynamics, and this is not surprising considering the energy oscillations observed by Wolf {\it et al.} and the discontinuity in the forces discussed in the main portion of this paper.\cite{Wolf99} Long cutoff radii, moderate damping, or a combination of the two are required for {\sc sp} to perform respectably.  With a cutoff greater than 12 \AA\ and $\alpha$ of 0.2 \AA$^{-1}$, {\sc sp} provides result right in line with SPME.
@@ -123,8 +123,10 @@ GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.298 & 0.270 & 0.083 & 3.098 & 0.992 & 
       & 0.3 & 0.728 & 0.694 & 0.692 & 7.410 & 6.942 & 6.748 \\
       \bottomrule
    \end{tabular}
-   \label{tab:spceTabAng}
+   \label{tab:spceAng}
 \end{table}
+
+The directionality of the force and torque vectors show a lot of parallels with the magnitude results in table \ref{tab:spceMag}.
 
 \section{\label{app-ice}Solid Water: Ice I$_\textrm{c}$}
 
