ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/trunk/electrostaticMethodsPaper/electrostaticMethods.tex
(Generate patch)

Comparing trunk/electrostaticMethodsPaper/electrostaticMethods.tex (file contents):
Revision 2639 by chrisfen, Mon Mar 20 02:00:26 2006 UTC vs.
Revision 2640 by chrisfen, Mon Mar 20 13:31:52 2006 UTC

# Line 87 | Line 87 | Ewald summations, interaction shifting or
87   classified as implicit methods (i.e., continuum dielectrics, static
88   dipolar fields),\cite{Born20,Grossfield00} explicit methods (i.e.,
89   Ewald summations, interaction shifting or
90 < trucation),\cite{Ewald21,Steinbach94} or a mixture of the two (i.e.,
90 > truncation),\cite{Ewald21,Steinbach94} or a mixture of the two (i.e.,
91   reaction field type methods, fast multipole
92   methods).\cite{Onsager36,Rokhlin85} The explicit or mixed methods are
93   often preferred because they incorporate dynamic solvent molecules in
# Line 106 | Line 106 | a variety of model systems and comparison methodologie
106   modification to the direct pairwise sum, and they lack the added
107   periodicity of the Ewald sum. Below, these methods are evaluated using
108   a variety of model systems and comparison methodologies to establish
109 < their useability in molecular simulations.
109 > their usability in molecular simulations.
110  
111   \subsection{The Ewald Sum}
112   The complete accumulation electrostatic interactions in a system with
# Line 126 | Line 126 | case of monopole electrostatics, eq. (\ref{eq:PBCSum})
126   $j$, and $\phi$ is Poisson's equation ($\phi(\mathbf{r}_{ij}) = q_i
127   q_j |\mathbf{r}_{ij}|^{-1}$ for charge-charge interactions). In the
128   case of monopole electrostatics, eq. (\ref{eq:PBCSum}) is
129 < conditionally convergent and is discontiuous for non-neutral systems.
129 > conditionally convergent and is discontinuous for non-neutral systems.
130  
131   This electrostatic summation problem was originally studied by Ewald
132   for the case of an infinite crystal.\cite{Ewald21}. The approach he
# Line 176 | Line 176 | real-space or reciprocal space portion of the summatio
176   direct and reciprocal-space portions of the summation.  The choice of
177   the magnitude of this value allows one to select whether the
178   real-space or reciprocal space portion of the summation is an
179 < $\mathscr{O}(N^2)$ calcualtion (with the other being
179 > $\mathscr{O}(N^2)$ calculation (with the other being
180   $\mathscr{O}(N)$).\cite{Sagui99} With appropriate choice of $\alpha$
181   and thoughtful algorithm development, this cost can be brought down to
182   $\mathscr{O}(N^{3/2})$.\cite{Perram88} The typical route taken to
# Line 212 | Line 212 | considering the use of the Ewald summation where the i
212   artificially stabilized by the periodic replicas introduced by the
213   Ewald summation.\cite{Weber00} Thus, care ought to be taken when
214   considering the use of the Ewald summation where the intrinsic
215 < perodicity may negatively affect the system dynamics.
215 > periodicity may negatively affect the system dynamics.
216  
217  
218   \subsection{The Wolf and Zahn Methods}
# Line 230 | Line 230 | the real-space portion of the Ewald sum) to aid conver
230   and a distance-dependent damping function (identical to that seen in
231   the real-space portion of the Ewald sum) to aid convergence
232   \begin{equation}
233 < V_{\textrm{Wolf}}(r_{ij})= \frac{q_iq_j \textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r_{ij}}-\lim_{r_{ij}\rightarrow R_\textrm{c}}\left\{\frac{q_iq_j \textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r_{ij}}\right\}.
233 > V_{\textrm{Wolf}}(r_{ij})= \frac{q_i q_j \textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r_{ij}}-\lim_{r_{ij}\rightarrow R_\textrm{c}}\left\{\frac{q_iq_j \textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_{ij})}{r_{ij}}\right\}.
234   \label{eq:WolfPot}
235   \end{equation}
236   Eq. (\ref{eq:WolfPot}) is essentially the common form of a shifted
# Line 738 | Line 738 | al.},\cite{Wolf99} and this correction indeed improves
738   Correcting the resulting charged cutoff sphere is one of the purposes
739   of the damped Coulomb summation proposed by Wolf \textit{et
740   al.},\cite{Wolf99} and this correction indeed improves the results as
741 < seen in the Shifted-Potental rows.  While the undamped case of this
741 > seen in the {\sc sp} rows.  While the undamped case of this
742   method is a significant improvement over the pure cutoff, it still
743   doesn't correlate that well with SPME.  Inclusion of potential damping
744   improves the results, and using an $\alpha$ of 0.2 \AA $^{-1}$ shows
# Line 951 | Line 951 | the point charges for the pairwise summation methods;
951   increased, these peaks are smoothed out, and approach the SPME
952   curve. The damping acts as a distance dependent Gaussian screening of
953   the point charges for the pairwise summation methods; thus, the
954 < collisions are more elastic in the undamped {\sc sf} potental, and the
954 > collisions are more elastic in the undamped {\sc sf} potential, and the
955   stiffness of the potential is diminished as the electrostatic
956   interactions are softened by the damping function.  With $\alpha$
957   values of 0.2 \AA$^{-1}$, the {\sc sf} and {\sc sp} functions are

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines