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 2660 by chrisfen, Thu Mar 23 05:59:41 2006 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1   %\documentclass[prb,aps,twocolumn,tabularx]{revtex4}
2   \documentclass[12pt]{article}
3 < \usepackage{endfloat}
3 > %\usepackage{endfloat}
4   \usepackage{amsmath}
5   \usepackage{amssymb}
6   \usepackage{epsf}
# Line 23 | Line 23 | This document includes system based comparisons of the
23  
24   \begin{document}
25  
26 < This document includes system based comparisons of the studied methods with smooth particle-mesh Ewald.  Each of the seven systems comprises it's own section and has it's own discussion and tabular listing of the results for the $\Delta E$, force and torque vector magnitude, and force and torque vector direction comparisons.
26 > This document includes individual system-based comparisons of the
27 > studied methods with smooth particle-mesh Ewald.  Each of the seven
28 > systems comprises its own section and has its own discussion and
29 > tabular listing of the results for the $\Delta E$, force and torque
30 > vector magnitude, and force and torque vector direction comparisons.
31  
32 < \section{\label{app-water}Liquid Water}
32 > \section{\label{app:water}Liquid Water}
33  
34 + 500 liquid state configurations were generated as described in the
35 + Methods section using the SPC/E model of water.\cite{Berendsen87} The
36 + results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector
37 + magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:spce}.  The force
38 + and torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in
39 + table \ref{tab:spceAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and
40 + switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are
41 + investigated.
42   \begin{table}[htbp]
43     \centering
44 <   \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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}  
44 >   \caption{Regression results for the liquid water system. Tabulated
45 > results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force vector magnitudes
46 > (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure
47 > Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group
48 > Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx
49 > \infty$).}      
50     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
51        \\
52        \toprule
# Line 49 | Line 66 | RF  &     & 0.971 & 0.958 & 0.975 & 0.987 & 0.959 & 0.
66      & 0.2 & 0.992 & 0.989 & 1.001 & 0.995 & 0.994 & 0.996 \\
67      & 0.3 & 0.984 & 0.980 & 0.996 & 0.985 & 0.982 & 0.987 \\
68   GSC &     & 0.918 & 0.862 & 0.852 & 0.756 & 0.801 & 0.700 \\
69 < RF  &     & 0.971 & 0.958 & 0.975 & 0.987 & 0.959 & 0.983 \\                              
53 <
69 > RF  &     & 0.971 & 0.958 & 0.975 & 0.987 & 0.959 & 0.983 \\                
70              \midrule
55
71   PC  &     & -1.647 & 0.000 & -0.127 & 0.000 & -0.979 & 0.000 \\
72   SP  & 0.0 & 0.735 & 0.368 & 0.813 & 0.537 & 0.865 & 0.659 \\
73      & 0.1 & 0.850 & 0.612 & 0.956 & 0.887 & 0.992 & 0.979 \\
# Line 64 | Line 79 | RF  &     & 0.999 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.
79      & 0.3 & 0.996 & 0.998 & 0.997 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 0.998 \\
80   GSC &     & 0.998 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
81   RF  &     & 0.999 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\          
67
82              \midrule
69
83   PC  &     & 2.387 & 0.000 & 0.183 & 0.000 & 1.282 & 0.000 \\
84   SP  & 0.0 & 0.847 & 0.543 & 0.904 & 0.694 & 0.935 & 0.786 \\
85      & 0.1 & 0.922 & 0.749 & 0.980 & 0.934 & 0.996 & 0.988 \\
# Line 80 | Line 93 | RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.989 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.
93   RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.989 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.999 \\
94        \bottomrule
95     \end{tabular}
96 <   \label{spceTabTMag}
96 >   \label{tab:spce}
97   \end{table}
98  
99   \begin{table}[htbp]
100     \centering
101 <   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular distributions of the force and torque vectors in the liquid water system.  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.}  
101 >   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular
102 > distributions of the force and torque vectors in the liquid water
103 > system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force,
104 > GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon
105 > \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF =
106 > Group Switched Shifted Force.}  
107     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
108        \\
109        \toprule
# Line 116 | Line 134 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.298 & 0.270 & 0.083 & 3.098 & 0.992 &
134        & 0.3 & 0.728 & 0.694 & 0.692 & 7.410 & 6.942 & 6.748 \\
135        \bottomrule
136     \end{tabular}
137 <   \label{spceTabAng}
137 >   \label{tab:spceAng}
138   \end{table}
139  
140 < \section{\label{app-ice}Solid Water: Ice I$_\textrm{c}$}
140 > For the most parts, the water results appear to parallel the combined
141 > results seen in the discussion in the main paper.  There is good
142 > agreement with SPME in both energetic and dynamic behavior when using
143 > the {\sc sf} method with and without damping. The {\sc sp} method does
144 > well with an $\alpha$ around 0.2 \AA$^{-1}$, particularly with cutoff
145 > radii greater than 12 \AA. The results for both of these methods also
146 > begin to decay as damping gets too large.
147  
148 + The pure cutoff (PC) method performs poorly, as seen in the main
149 + discussion section.  In contrast to the combined values, however, the
150 + use of a switching function and group based cutoffs really improves
151 + the results for these neutral water molecules.  The group switched
152 + cutoff (GSC) shows mimics the energetics of SPME more poorly than the
153 + {\sc sp} (with moderate damping) and {\sc sf} methods, but the
154 + dynamics are quite good.  The switching functions corrects
155 + discontinuities in the potential and forces, leading to the improved
156 + results.  Such improvements with the use of a switching function has
157 + been recognized in previous studies,\cite{Andrea83,Steinbach94} and it
158 + is a useful tactic for stably incorporating local area electrostatic
159 + effects.
160 +
161 + The reaction field (RF) method simply extends the results observed in
162 + the GSC case.  Both methods are similar in form (i.e. neutral groups,
163 + switching function), but RF incorporates an added effect from the
164 + external dielectric. This similarity translates into the same good
165 + dynamic results and improved energetic results.  These still fall
166 + short of the moderately damped {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods, but they
167 + display how incorporating some implicit properties of the surroundings
168 + (i.e. $\epsilon_\textrm{S}$) can improve results.
169 +
170 + A final note for the liquid water system, use of group cutoffs and a
171 + switching function also leads to noticeable improvements in the {\sc
172 + sp} and {\sc sf} methods, primarily in directionality of the force and
173 + torque vectors (table \ref{tab:spceAng}).  {\sc sp} shows significant
174 + narrowing of the angle distribution in the cases with little to no
175 + damping and only modest improvement for the ideal conditions ($\alpha$
176 + = 0.2 \AA${-1}$ and $R_\textrm{c} \geqslant 12$~\AA).  The {\sc sf}
177 + method simply shows modest narrowing across all damping and cutoff
178 + ranges of interest.  Group cutoffs and the switching function do
179 + nothing for cases were error is introduced by overdamping the
180 + potentials.
181 +
182 + \section{\label{app:ice}Solid Water: Ice I$_\textrm{c}$}
183 +
184 + In addition to the disordered molecular system above, the ordered
185 + molecular system of ice I$_\textrm{c}$ was also considered. The
186 + results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector
187 + magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:ice}.  The force and
188 + torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in table
189 + \ref{tab:iceAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and
190 + switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are
191 + investigated.
192 +
193   \begin{table}[htbp]
194     \centering
195 <   \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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}    
195 >   \caption{Regression results for the ice I$_\textrm{c}$
196 > system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force
197 > vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom
198 > set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force,
199 > GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where
200 > $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}  
201     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
202        \\
203        \toprule
# Line 170 | Line 244 | RF  &     & 0.994 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.
244   RF  &     & 0.994 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
245        \bottomrule
246     \end{tabular}
247 <   \label{iceTab}
247 >   \label{tab:ice}
248   \end{table}
249  
250   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 206 | Line 280 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 2.124 & 0.132 & 0.069 & 0.919 & 0.263 &
280        & 0.3 & 0.251 & 0.251 & 0.259 & 2.387 & 2.395 & 2.328 \\
281        \bottomrule
282     \end{tabular}
283 <   \label{iceTabAng}
283 >   \label{tab:iceAng}
284   \end{table}
285  
286 < \section{\label{app-melt}NaCl Melt}
286 > Highly ordered systems are a difficult test for the pairwise systems
287 > in that they lack the periodicity inherent to the Ewald summation.  As
288 > expected, the energy gap agreement with SPME reduces for the {\sc sp}
289 > and {\sc sf} with parameters that were perfectly acceptable for the
290 > disordered liquid system.  Moving to higher $R_\textrm{c}$ remedies
291 > this degraded performance, though at increase in computational cost.
292 > However, the dynamics of this crystalline system (both in magnitude
293 > and direction) are little affected. Both methods still reproduce the
294 > Ewald behavior with the same parameter recommendations from the
295 > previous section.
296  
297 + It is also worth noting that RF exhibits a slightly improved energy
298 + gap results over the liquid water system.  One possible explanation is
299 + that the ice I$_\textrm{c}$ crystal is ordered such that the net
300 + dipole moment of the crystal is zero.  With $\epsilon_\textrm{S} =
301 + \infty$, the reaction field incorporates this structural organization
302 + by actively enforcing a zeroed dipole moment within each cutoff
303 + sphere.  
304 +
305 + \section{\label{app:melt}NaCl Melt}
306 +
307 + A high temperature NaCl melt was tested to gauge the accuracy of the
308 + pairwise summation methods in a highly charge disordered system. The
309 + results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector
310 + magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:melt}.  The force
311 + and torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in
312 + table \ref{tab:meltAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and
313 + switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are
314 + investigated.
315 +
316   \begin{table}[htbp]
317     \centering
318     \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 224 | Line 326 | SP  & 0.0 & 0.937 & 0.996 & 0.880 & 0.995 & 0.971 & 0.
326              Method & $\alpha$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ \\
327              \midrule
328   PC  &     & -0.008 & 0.000 & -0.049 & 0.005 & -0.136 & 0.020 \\
329 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.937 & 0.996 & 0.880 & 0.995 & 0.971 & 0.999 \\
330 <    & 0.1 & 1.004 & 0.999 & 0.958 & 1.000 & 0.928 & 0.994 \\
329 > SP  & 0.0 & 0.928 & 0.996 & 0.931 & 0.998 & 0.950 & 0.999 \\
330 >    & 0.1 & 0.977 & 0.998 & 0.998 & 1.000 & 0.997 & 1.000 \\
331      & 0.2 & 0.960 & 1.000 & 0.813 & 0.996 & 0.811 & 0.954 \\
332      & 0.3 & 0.671 & 0.994 & 0.439 & 0.929 & 0.535 & 0.831 \\
333 < SF  & 0.0 & 1.001 & 1.000 & 0.949 & 1.000 & 1.008 & 1.000 \\
334 <    & 0.1 & 1.025 & 1.000 & 0.960 & 1.000 & 0.929 & 0.994 \\
333 > SF  & 0.0 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.997 & 1.000 \\
334 >    & 0.1 & 1.021 & 1.000 & 1.024 & 1.000 & 1.007 & 1.000 \\
335      & 0.2 & 0.966 & 1.000 & 0.813 & 0.996 & 0.811 & 0.954 \\
336      & 0.3 & 0.671 & 0.994 & 0.439 & 0.929 & 0.535 & 0.831 \\
337              \midrule
338   PC  &     & 1.103 & 0.000 & 0.989 & 0.000 & 0.802 & 0.000 \\
339 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.976 & 0.983 & 1.001 & 0.991 & 0.985 & 0.995 \\
340 <    & 0.1 & 0.996 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 0.996 \\
339 > SP  & 0.0 & 0.973 & 0.981 & 0.975 & 0.988 & 0.979 & 0.992 \\
340 >    & 0.1 & 0.987 & 0.992 & 0.993 & 0.998 & 0.997 & 0.999 \\
341      & 0.2 & 0.993 & 0.996 & 0.985 & 0.988 & 0.986 & 0.981 \\
342      & 0.3 & 0.956 & 0.956 & 0.940 & 0.912 & 0.948 & 0.929 \\
343 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.997 & 0.998 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.999 & 1.000 \\
344 <    & 0.1 & 1.001 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 0.996 & 0.996 \\
343 > SF  & 0.0 & 0.996 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 0.998 & 1.000 \\
344 >    & 0.1 & 1.000 & 0.997 & 1.001 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
345      & 0.2 & 0.994 & 0.996 & 0.985 & 0.988 & 0.986 & 0.981 \\
346      & 0.3 & 0.956 & 0.956 & 0.940 & 0.912 & 0.948 & 0.929 \\
347        \bottomrule
348     \end{tabular}
349 <   \label{meltTab}
349 >   \label{tab:melt}
350   \end{table}
351  
352   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 269 | Line 371 | SF  & 0.0 & 1.693 & 0.603 & 0.256 \\
371      & 0.3 & 23.734 & 67.305 & 57.252 \\
372        \bottomrule
373     \end{tabular}
374 <   \label{meltTabAng}
374 >   \label{tab:meltAng}
375   \end{table}
376  
377 < \section{\label{app-salt}NaCl Crystal}
377 > The molten NaCl system shows more sensitivity to the electrostatic
378 > damping than the water systems. The most noticeable point is that the
379 > undamped {\sc sf} method does very well at replicating the {\sc spme}
380 > configurational energy differences and forces. Light damping appears
381 > to minimally improve the dynamics, but this comes with a deterioration
382 > of the energy gap results. In contrast, this light damping improves
383 > the {\sc sp} energy gaps and forces. Moderate and heavy electrostatic
384 > damping reduce the agreement with {\sc spme} for both methods. From
385 > these observations, the undamped {\sc sf} method is the best choice
386 > for disordered systems of charges.
387  
388 + \section{\label{app:salt}NaCl Crystal}
389 +
390 + A 1000K NaCl crystal was used to investigate the accuracy of the
391 + pairwise summation methods in an ordered system of charged
392 + particles. The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force
393 + and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table
394 + \ref{tab:salt}.  The force and torque vector directionality results
395 + are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:saltAng}, where the effect
396 + of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and
397 + {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
398 +
399   \begin{table}[htbp]
400     \centering
401 <   \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.}    
401 >   \caption{Regression results for the crystalline NaCl
402 > system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set) and
403 > force vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted
404 > Potential, and SF = Shifted Force.}    
405     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
406        \\
407        \toprule
# Line 307 | Line 432 | SF  & 0.0 & 1.002 & 0.983 & 0.997 & 0.994 & 0.991 & 0.
432      & 0.3 & 0.950 & 0.952 & 0.950 & 0.953 & 0.950 & 0.953 \\
433        \bottomrule
434     \end{tabular}
435 <   \label{saltTab}
435 >   \label{tab:salt}
436   \end{table}
437  
438   \begin{table}[htbp]
439     \centering
440 <   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular distributions of the force vectors in the crystalline NaCl system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}        
440 >   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular
441 > distributions of the force vectors in the crystalline NaCl system.  PC
442 > = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group
443 > Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx
444 > \infty$).}      
445     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
446        \\
447        \toprule
# Line 332 | Line 461 | SF  & 0.0 & 10.025 & 3.555 & 1.648 \\
461      & 0.3 & 31.120 & 31.105 & 31.029 \\
462        \bottomrule
463     \end{tabular}
464 <   \label{saltTabAng}
464 >   \label{tab:saltAng}
465   \end{table}
466  
467 < \section{\label{app-sol1}Weak NaCl Solution}
467 > The crystalline NaCl system is the most challenging test case for the
468 > pairwise summation methods, as evidenced by the results in tables
469 > \ref{tab:salt} and \ref{tab:saltAng}. The undamped and weakly damped
470 > {\sc sf} methods with a 12 \AA\ cutoff radius seem to be the best
471 > choices. These methods match well with {\sc spme} across the energy
472 > gap, force magnitude, and force directionality tests.  The {\sc sp}
473 > method struggles in all cases with the exception of good dynamics
474 > reproduction when using weak electrostatic damping with a large cutoff
475 > radius.
476  
477 + The moderate electrostatic damping case is not as good as we would
478 + expect given the good long-time dynamics results observed for this
479 + system. Since these results are a test of instantaneous dynamics, this
480 + indicates that good long-time dynamics comes in part at the expense of
481 + short-time dynamics. Further indication of this comes from the full
482 + power spectra shown in the main text. It appears as though a
483 + distortion is introduced between 200 to 300 cm$^{-1}$ with increased
484 + $\alpha$.
485 +
486 + \section{\label{app:solnWeak}Weak NaCl Solution}
487 +
488 + In an effort to bridge the charged atomic and neutral molecular
489 + systems, Na$^+$ and Cl$^-$ ion charge defects were incorporated into
490 + the liquid water system. This low ionic strength system consists of 4
491 + ions in the 1000 SPC/E water solvent ($\approx$0.11 M). The results
492 + for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector
493 + magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The
494 + force and torque vector directionality results are displayed
495 + separately in table \ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where the effect of
496 + group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc
497 + sf} potentials are investigated.
498 +
499   \begin{table}[htbp]
500     \centering
501 <   \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.}      
501 >   \caption{Regression results for the weak NaCl solution
502 > system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force
503 > vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom
504 > set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force,
505 > GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon
506 > \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF =
507 > Group Switched Shifted Force.}  
508     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
509        \\
510        \toprule
# Line 386 | Line 551 | RF  &     & 0.984 & 0.975 & 0.996 & 0.995 & 0.998 & 0.
551   RF  &     & 0.984 & 0.975 & 0.996 & 0.995 & 0.998 & 0.998 \\
552        \bottomrule
553     \end{tabular}
554 <   \label{sol1Tab}
554 >   \label{tab:solnWeak}
555   \end{table}
556  
557   \begin{table}[htbp]
558     \centering
559 <   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular distributions of the force and torque vectors in the weak NaCl solution system.  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.}    
559 >   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular
560 > distributions of the force and torque vectors in the weak NaCl
561 > solution system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF =
562 > Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF = Reaction Field (where
563 > $\varepsilon \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted
564 > Potential, and GSSF = Group Switched Shifted Force.}    
565     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
566        \\
567        \toprule
# Line 422 | Line 592 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.541 & 0.301 & 0.096 & 6.407 & 1.316 &
592        & 0.3 & 0.954 & 0.759 & 0.780 & 12.337 & 7.684 & 7.849 \\
593        \bottomrule
594     \end{tabular}
595 <   \label{sol1TabAng}
595 >   \label{tab:solnWeakAng}
596   \end{table}
597  
598 < \section{\label{app-sol10}Strong NaCl Solution}
598 > This weak ionic strength system can be considered as a perturbation of
599 > the pure liquid water system. The {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods are
600 > not significantly affected by the inclusion of a few ions. The aspect
601 > of cutoff sphere neutralization aids in the smooth incorporation of
602 > these ions; thus, all of the observations regarding these methods
603 > carry over from section \ref{app:water}. The differences between these
604 > systems are visible for the {\sc rf} method. Though good force
605 > reproduction is still maintained, the energy gaps show a significant
606 > increase in the data scatter. This foreshadows the breakdown of the
607 > method as we introduce system inhomogeneities.
608  
609 + \section{\label{app:solnStr}Strong NaCl Solution}
610 +
611 + The bridging of the charged atomic and neutral molecular systems was
612 + further developed by considering a high ionic strength system
613 + consisting of 40 ions in the 1000 SPC/E water solvent ($\approx$1.1
614 + M). The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and
615 + torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table
616 + \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The force and torque vector directionality
617 + results are displayed separately in table\ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where
618 + the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc
619 + sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
620 +
621   \begin{table}[htbp]
622     \centering
623 <   \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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}  
623 >   \caption{Regression results for the strong NaCl solution
624 > system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force
625 > vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom
626 > set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force,
627 > GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where
628 > $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}        
629     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
630        \\
631        \toprule
# Line 476 | Line 672 | RF  &     & 0.949 & 0.939 & 0.988 & 0.988 & 0.992 & 0.
672   RF  &     & 0.949 & 0.939 & 0.988 & 0.988 & 0.992 & 0.993 \\
673        \bottomrule
674     \end{tabular}
675 <   \label{sol10Tab}
675 >   \label{tab:solnStr}
676   \end{table}
677  
678   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 512 | Line 708 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 2.494 & 0.546 & 0.217 & 16.391 & 3.230 &
708        & 0.3 & 1.752 & 1.454 & 1.451 & 23.587 & 14.390 & 14.245 \\
709        \bottomrule
710     \end{tabular}
711 <   \label{sol10TabAng}
711 >   \label{tab:solnStrAng}
712   \end{table}
713  
714 < \section{\label{app-argon}Argon Sphere in Water}
714 > The {\sc rf} method struggles with the jump in ionic strength. The
715 > configuration energy difference degrade to unuseable levels while the
716 > forces and torques degrade in a more modest fashion. The {\sc rf}
717 > method was designed for homogeneous systems, and this restriction is
718 > apparent in these results.
719  
720 + The {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods require larger cutoffs to maintain
721 + their agreement with {\sc spme}. With these results, we still
722 + recommend no to moderate damping for the {\sc sf} method and moderate
723 + damping for the {\sc sp} method, both with cutoffs greater than 12
724 + \AA.
725 +
726 + \section{\label{app:argon}Argon Sphere in Water}
727 +
728 + The final model system studied was 6 \AA\ sphere of Argon solvated by
729 + SPC/E water. The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force
730 + and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table
731 + \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The force and torque vector directionality
732 + results are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where
733 + the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc
734 + sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
735 +
736   \begin{table}[htbp]
737     \centering
738 <   \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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}    
738 >   \caption{Regression results for the 6 \AA\ argon sphere in liquid
739 > water system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set),
740 > force vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes
741 > (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted
742 > Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where
743 > $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}        
744     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
745        \\
746        \toprule
# Line 566 | Line 787 | RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.988 & 0.997 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.
787   RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.988 & 0.997 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.998 \\
788        \bottomrule
789     \end{tabular}
790 <   \label{argonTab}
790 >   \label{tab:argon}
791   \end{table}
792  
793   \begin{table}[htbp]
794     \centering
795 <   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular distributions of the force and torque vectors in the 6 \AA\ sphere of argon in liquid water system.  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.}
795 >   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular
796 > distributions of the force and torque vectors in the 6 \AA\ sphere of
797 > argon in liquid water system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted
798 > Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF =
799 > Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group
800 > Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF = Group Switched Shifted Force.}  
801     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
802        \\
803        \toprule
# Line 602 | Line 828 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.173 & 0.292 & 0.113 & 3.452 & 1.347 &
828        & 0.3 & 0.814 & 0.825 & 0.816 & 8.325 & 8.447 & 8.132 \\
829        \bottomrule
830     \end{tabular}
831 <   \label{argonTabAng}
831 >   \label{tab:argonAng}
832   \end{table}
833  
834 < \end{document}
834 > This system appears not to show in any significant deviation in the previously observed results. The {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods give result qualities similar to those observed in section \ref{app:water}. The only significant difference is the improvement for the configuration energy differences for the {\sc rf} method. This is surprising in that we are introducing an inhomogeneity to the system; however, this inhomogeneity is charge-neutral and does not result in charged cutoff spheres. The charge-neutrality, which the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods explicity enforce, seems to play a greater role in the stability of the {\sc rf} method than the necessity of a homogeneous environment.
835 >
836 > \newpage
837 >
838 > \bibliographystyle{jcp2}
839 > \bibliography{electrostaticMethods}
840 >
841 > \end{document}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines