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

Comparing trunk/electrostaticMethodsPaper/SupportingInfo.tex (file contents):
Revision 2599 by chrisfen, Tue Feb 28 14:09:55 2006 UTC vs.
Revision 2654 by chrisfen, Tue Mar 21 22:34:01 2006 UTC

# Line 27 | Line 27 | This document includes system based comparisons of the
27  
28   \section{\label{app-water}Liquid Water}
29  
30 + 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:spce}.  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.
31   \begin{table}[htbp]
32     \centering
33     \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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}  
# Line 80 | Line 81 | RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.989 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.
81   RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.989 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.999 \\
82        \bottomrule
83     \end{tabular}
84 <   \label{spceTabTMag}
84 >   \label{tab:spce}
85   \end{table}
86  
87   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 116 | Line 117 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.298 & 0.270 & 0.083 & 3.098 & 0.992 &
117        & 0.3 & 0.728 & 0.694 & 0.692 & 7.410 & 6.942 & 6.748 \\
118        \bottomrule
119     \end{tabular}
120 <   \label{spceTabAng}
120 >   \label{tab:spceAng}
121   \end{table}
122  
123 + For the most parts, the water results appear to parallel the combined results seen in the discussion in the main paper.  There is good agreement with SPME in both energetic and dynamic behavior when using the {\sc sf} method with and without damping. The {\sc sp} method does well with an $\alpha$ around $0.2 \AA^{-1}$, particularly with cutoff radii greater than 12 \AA. The results for both of these methods also begin to decay as damping gets too large.
124 +
125 + The pure cutoff (PC) method performs poorly, as seen in the main discussion section.  In contrast to the combined values, however, the use of a switching function and group based cutoffs really improves the results for these neutral water molecules.  The group switched cutoff (GSC) shows mimics the energetics of SPME more poorly than the {\sc sp} (with moderate damping) and {\sc sf} methods, but the dynamics are quite good.  The switching functions corrects discontinuities in the potential and forces, leading to the improved results.  Such improvements with the use of a switching function has been recognized in previous studies,\cite{Andrea83,Steinbach94} and it is a useful tactic for stably incorporating local area electrostatic effects.
126 +
127 + The reaction field (RF) method simply extends the results observed in the GSC case.  Both methods are similar in form (i.e. neutral groups, switching function), but RF incorporates an added effect from the external dielectric. This similarity translates into the same good dynamic results and improved energetic results.  These still fall short of the moderately damped {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods, but they display how incorporating some implicit properties of the surroundings (i.e. $\epsilon_\textrm{S}$) can improve results.
128 +
129 + A final note for the liquid water system, use of group cutoffs and a switching function also leads to noticeable improvements in the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods, primarily in directionality of the force and torque vectors (table \ref{tab:spceAng}).  {\sc sp} shows significant narrowing of the angle distribution in the cases with little to no damping and only modest improvement for the ideal conditions ($\alpha = 0.2 \AA{-1}$ and $R_\textrm{c} \geqslant 12 \AA$).  The {\sc sf} method simply shows modest narrowing across all damping and cutoff ranges of interest.  Group cutoffs and the switching function do nothing for cases were error is introduced by overdamping the potentials.
130 +
131   \section{\label{app-ice}Solid Water: Ice I$_\textrm{c}$}
132  
133 + In addition to the disordered molecular system above, the ordered molecular system of ice I$_\textrm{c}$ was also considered. The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:ice}.  The force and torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:iceAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
134 +
135   \begin{table}[htbp]
136     \centering
137     \caption{Regression results for the ice I$_\textrm{c}$ 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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}    
# Line 170 | Line 181 | RF  &     & 0.994 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.
181   RF  &     & 0.994 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
182        \bottomrule
183     \end{tabular}
184 <   \label{iceTab}
184 >   \label{tab:ice}
185   \end{table}
186  
187   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 206 | Line 217 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 2.124 & 0.132 & 0.069 & 0.919 & 0.263 &
217        & 0.3 & 0.251 & 0.251 & 0.259 & 2.387 & 2.395 & 2.328 \\
218        \bottomrule
219     \end{tabular}
220 <   \label{iceTabAng}
220 >   \label{tab:iceAng}
221   \end{table}
222  
223 + Highly ordered systems are a difficult test for the pairwise systems in that they lack the periodicity inherent to the Ewald summation.  As expected, the energy gap agreement with SPME reduces for the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} with parameters that were perfectly acceptable for the disordered liquid system.  Moving to higher $R_\textrm{c}$ remedies this degraded performance, though at increase in computational cost.  However, the dynamics of this crystalline system (both in magnitude and direction) are little affected. Both methods still reproduce the Ewald behavior with the same parameter recommendations from the previous section.
224 +
225 + It is also worth noting that RF exhibits a slightly improved energy gap results over the liquid water system.  One possible explanation is that the ice I$_\textrm{c}$ crystal is ordered such that the net dipole moment of the crystal is zero.  With $\epsilon_\textrm{S} = \infty$, the reaction field incorporates this structural organization by actively enforcing a zeroed dipole moment within each cutoff sphere.
226 +
227   \section{\label{app-melt}NaCl Melt}
228  
229 + A high temperature NaCl melt was tested to gauge the accuracy of the pairwise summation methods in a highly charge disordered system. The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:melt}.  The force and torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:meltAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
230 +
231   \begin{table}[htbp]
232     \centering
233     \caption{Regression results for the molten NaCl system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set) and force vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, and SF = Shifted Force.}  
# Line 244 | Line 261 | SF  & 0.0 & 0.997 & 0.998 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.999 & 1.
261      & 0.3 & 0.956 & 0.956 & 0.940 & 0.912 & 0.948 & 0.929 \\
262        \bottomrule
263     \end{tabular}
264 <   \label{meltTab}
264 >   \label{tab:melt}
265   \end{table}
266  
267   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 269 | Line 286 | SF  & 0.0 & 1.693 & 0.603 & 0.256 \\
286      & 0.3 & 23.734 & 67.305 & 57.252 \\
287        \bottomrule
288     \end{tabular}
289 <   \label{meltTabAng}
289 >   \label{tab:meltAng}
290   \end{table}
291 +
292 +
293  
294   \section{\label{app-salt}NaCl Crystal}
295  
296 + A 1000K NaCl crystal was used to investigate the accuracy of the pairwise summation methods in an ordered system of charged particles. The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:salt}.  The force and torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:saltAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
297 +
298   \begin{table}[htbp]
299     \centering
300     \caption{Regression results for the crystalline NaCl system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set) and force vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, and SF = Shifted Force.}    
# Line 307 | Line 328 | SF  & 0.0 & 1.002 & 0.983 & 0.997 & 0.994 & 0.991 & 0.
328      & 0.3 & 0.950 & 0.952 & 0.950 & 0.953 & 0.950 & 0.953 \\
329        \bottomrule
330     \end{tabular}
331 <   \label{saltTab}
331 >   \label{tab:salt}
332   \end{table}
333  
334   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 332 | Line 353 | SF  & 0.0 & 10.025 & 3.555 & 1.648 \\
353      & 0.3 & 31.120 & 31.105 & 31.029 \\
354        \bottomrule
355     \end{tabular}
356 <   \label{saltTabAng}
356 >   \label{tab:saltAng}
357   \end{table}
358  
359   \section{\label{app-sol1}Weak NaCl Solution}
360  
361 + In an effort to bridge the charged atomic and neutral molecular systems, Na$^+$ and Cl$^-$ ion charge defects were incorporated into the liquid water system. This low ionic strength system consists of 4 ions in the 1000 SPC/E water solvent ($\approx$0.11 M). The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The force and torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
362 +
363   \begin{table}[htbp]
364     \centering
365     \caption{Regression results for the weak NaCl solution 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, RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF = Group Switched Shifted Force.}      
# Line 386 | Line 409 | RF  &     & 0.984 & 0.975 & 0.996 & 0.995 & 0.998 & 0.
409   RF  &     & 0.984 & 0.975 & 0.996 & 0.995 & 0.998 & 0.998 \\
410        \bottomrule
411     \end{tabular}
412 <   \label{sol1Tab}
412 >   \label{tab:solnWeak}
413   \end{table}
414  
415   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 422 | Line 445 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.541 & 0.301 & 0.096 & 6.407 & 1.316 &
445        & 0.3 & 0.954 & 0.759 & 0.780 & 12.337 & 7.684 & 7.849 \\
446        \bottomrule
447     \end{tabular}
448 <   \label{sol1TabAng}
448 >   \label{tab:solnWeakAng}
449   \end{table}
450  
451   \section{\label{app-sol10}Strong NaCl Solution}
452  
453 + The bridging of the charged atomic and neutral molecular systems was furthered by considering a high ionic strength system consisting of 40 ions in the 1000 SPC/E water solvent ($\approx$1.1 M). The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The force and torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
454 +
455   \begin{table}[htbp]
456     \centering
457     \caption{Regression results for the strong NaCl solution 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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}  
# Line 476 | Line 501 | RF  &     & 0.949 & 0.939 & 0.988 & 0.988 & 0.992 & 0.
501   RF  &     & 0.949 & 0.939 & 0.988 & 0.988 & 0.992 & 0.993 \\
502        \bottomrule
503     \end{tabular}
504 <   \label{sol10Tab}
504 >   \label{tab:solnStr}
505   \end{table}
506  
507   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 512 | Line 537 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 2.494 & 0.546 & 0.217 & 16.391 & 3.230 &
537        & 0.3 & 1.752 & 1.454 & 1.451 & 23.587 & 14.390 & 14.245 \\
538        \bottomrule
539     \end{tabular}
540 <   \label{sol10TabAng}
540 >   \label{tab:solnStrAng}
541   \end{table}
542  
543   \section{\label{app-argon}Argon Sphere in Water}
544  
545 + The final model system studied was 6 \AA\ sphere of Argon solvated by SPC/E water. The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The force and torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
546 +
547   \begin{table}[htbp]
548     \centering
549     \caption{Regression results for the 6 \AA\ argon sphere in 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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}    
# Line 566 | Line 593 | RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.988 & 0.997 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.
593   RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.988 & 0.997 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.998 \\
594        \bottomrule
595     \end{tabular}
596 <   \label{argonTab}
596 >   \label{tab:argon}
597   \end{table}
598  
599   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 602 | Line 629 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.173 & 0.292 & 0.113 & 3.452 & 1.347 &
629        & 0.3 & 0.814 & 0.825 & 0.816 & 8.325 & 8.447 & 8.132 \\
630        \bottomrule
631     \end{tabular}
632 <   \label{argonTabAng}
632 >   \label{tab:argonAng}
633   \end{table}
634  
635 + \newpage
636 +
637 + \bibliographystyle{jcp2}
638 + \bibliography{electrostaticMethods}
639 +
640   \end{document}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines