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 2657 by chrisfen, Wed Mar 22 19:20:28 2006 UTC vs.
Revision 2658 by gezelter, Wed Mar 22 21:00:07 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}
33  
34 < 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.
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 86 | Line 102 | RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.989 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.
102  
103   \begin{table}[htbp]
104     \centering
105 <   \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.}  
105 >   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular
106 > distributions of the force and torque vectors in the liquid water
107 > system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force,
108 > GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon
109 > \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF =
110 > Group Switched Shifted Force.}  
111     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
112        \\
113        \toprule
# Line 120 | Line 141 | For the most parts, the water results appear to parall
141     \label{tab:spceAng}
142   \end{table}
143  
144 < 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.
144 > For the most parts, the water results appear to parallel the combined
145 > results seen in the discussion in the main paper.  There is good
146 > agreement with SPME in both energetic and dynamic behavior when using
147 > the {\sc sf} method with and without damping. The {\sc sp} method does
148 > well with an $\alpha$ around 0.2 \AA$^{-1}$, particularly with cutoff
149 > radii greater than 12 \AA. The results for both of these methods also
150 > begin to decay as damping gets too large.
151  
152 < 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.
153 <
154 < 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.
152 > The pure cutoff (PC) method performs poorly, as seen in the main
153 > discussion section.  In contrast to the combined values, however, the
154 > use of a switching function and group based cutoffs really improves
155 > the results for these neutral water molecules.  The group switched
156 > cutoff (GSC) shows mimics the energetics of SPME more poorly than the
157 > {\sc sp} (with moderate damping) and {\sc sf} methods, but the
158 > dynamics are quite good.  The switching functions corrects
159 > discontinuities in the potential and forces, leading to the improved
160 > results.  Such improvements with the use of a switching function has
161 > been recognized in previous studies,\cite{Andrea83,Steinbach94} and it
162 > is a useful tactic for stably incorporating local area electrostatic
163 > effects.
164  
165 < 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.
165 > The reaction field (RF) method simply extends the results observed in
166 > the GSC case.  Both methods are similar in form (i.e. neutral groups,
167 > switching function), but RF incorporates an added effect from the
168 > external dielectric. This similarity translates into the same good
169 > dynamic results and improved energetic results.  These still fall
170 > short of the moderately damped {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods, but they
171 > display how incorporating some implicit properties of the surroundings
172 > (i.e. $\epsilon_\textrm{S}$) can improve results.
173  
174 + A final note for the liquid water system, use of group cutoffs and a
175 + switching function also leads to noticeable improvements in the {\sc
176 + sp} and {\sc sf} methods, primarily in directionality of the force and
177 + torque vectors (table \ref{tab:spceAng}).  {\sc sp} shows significant
178 + narrowing of the angle distribution in the cases with little to no
179 + damping and only modest improvement for the ideal conditions ($\alpha$
180 + = 0.2 \AA${-1}$ and $R_\textrm{c} \geqslant 12$~\AA).  The {\sc sf}
181 + method simply shows modest narrowing across all damping and cutoff
182 + ranges of interest.  Group cutoffs and the switching function do
183 + nothing for cases were error is introduced by overdamping the
184 + potentials.
185 +
186   \section{\label{app-ice}Solid Water: Ice I$_\textrm{c}$}
187  
188 < 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.
188 > In addition to the disordered molecular system above, the ordered
189 > molecular system of ice I$_\textrm{c}$ was also considered. The
190 > results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector
191 > magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:ice}.  The force and
192 > torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in table
193 > \ref{tab:iceAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and
194 > switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are
195 > investigated.
196  
197   \begin{table}[htbp]
198     \centering
199 <   \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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}    
199 >   \caption{Regression results for the ice I$_\textrm{c}$
200 > system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force
201 > vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom
202 > set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force,
203 > GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where
204 > $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}  
205     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
206        \\
207        \toprule
# Line 220 | Line 287 | Highly ordered systems are a difficult test for the pa
287     \label{tab:iceAng}
288   \end{table}
289  
290 < 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.
290 > Highly ordered systems are a difficult test for the pairwise systems
291 > in that they lack the periodicity inherent to the Ewald summation.  As
292 > expected, the energy gap agreement with SPME reduces for the {\sc sp}
293 > and {\sc sf} with parameters that were perfectly acceptable for the
294 > disordered liquid system.  Moving to higher $R_\textrm{c}$ remedies
295 > this degraded performance, though at increase in computational cost.
296 > However, the dynamics of this crystalline system (both in magnitude
297 > and direction) are little affected. Both methods still reproduce the
298 > Ewald behavior with the same parameter recommendations from the
299 > previous section.
300  
301 < 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.
301 > It is also worth noting that RF exhibits a slightly improved energy
302 > gap results over the liquid water system.  One possible explanation is
303 > that the ice I$_\textrm{c}$ crystal is ordered such that the net
304 > dipole moment of the crystal is zero.  With $\epsilon_\textrm{S} =
305 > \infty$, the reaction field incorporates this structural organization
306 > by actively enforcing a zeroed dipole moment within each cutoff
307 > sphere.  
308  
309   \section{\label{app-melt}NaCl Melt}
310  
311 < 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.
311 > A high temperature NaCl melt was tested to gauge the accuracy of the
312 > pairwise summation methods in a highly charge disordered system. The
313 > results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector
314 > magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:melt}.  The force
315 > and torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in
316 > table \ref{tab:meltAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and
317 > switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are
318 > investigated.
319  
320   \begin{table}[htbp]
321     \centering
# Line 293 | Line 382 | A 1000K NaCl crystal was used to investigate the accur
382  
383   \section{\label{app-salt}NaCl Crystal}
384  
385 < 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.
385 > A 1000K NaCl crystal was used to investigate the accuracy of the
386 > pairwise summation methods in an ordered system of charged
387 > particles. The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force
388 > and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table
389 > \ref{tab:salt}.  The force and torque vector directionality results
390 > are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:saltAng}, where the effect
391 > of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and
392 > {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
393  
394   \begin{table}[htbp]
395     \centering
396 <   \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.}    
396 >   \caption{Regression results for the crystalline NaCl
397 > system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set) and
398 > force vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted
399 > Potential, and SF = Shifted Force.}    
400     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
401        \\
402        \toprule
# Line 333 | Line 432 | SF  & 0.0 & 1.002 & 0.983 & 0.997 & 0.994 & 0.991 & 0.
432  
433   \begin{table}[htbp]
434     \centering
435 <   \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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}        
435 >   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular
436 > distributions of the force vectors in the crystalline NaCl system.  PC
437 > = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group
438 > Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx
439 > \infty$).}      
440     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
441        \\
442        \toprule
# Line 358 | Line 461 | In an effort to bridge the charged atomic and neutral
461  
462   \section{\label{app-sol1}Weak NaCl Solution}
463  
464 < 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$0.11 M). The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The force and torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
464 > In an effort to bridge the charged atomic and neutral molecular
465 > systems, Na$^+$ and Cl$^-$ ion charge defects were incorporated into
466 > the liquid water system. This low ionic strength system consists of 4
467 > ions in the 1000 SPC/E water solvent ($\approx$0.11 M). The results
468 > for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector
469 > magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The
470 > force and torque vector directionality results are displayed
471 > separately in table \ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where the effect of
472 > group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc
473 > sf} potentials are investigated.
474  
475   \begin{table}[htbp]
476     \centering
477 <   \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.}      
477 >   \caption{Regression results for the weak NaCl solution
478 > system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force
479 > vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom
480 > set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force,
481 > GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon
482 > \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF =
483 > Group Switched Shifted Force.}  
484     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
485        \\
486        \toprule
# Line 414 | Line 532 | RF  &     & 0.984 & 0.975 & 0.996 & 0.995 & 0.998 & 0.
532  
533   \begin{table}[htbp]
534     \centering
535 <   \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.}    
535 >   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular
536 > distributions of the force and torque vectors in the weak NaCl
537 > solution system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF =
538 > Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF = Reaction Field (where
539 > $\varepsilon \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted
540 > Potential, and GSSF = Group Switched Shifted Force.}    
541     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
542        \\
543        \toprule
# Line 450 | Line 573 | The bridging of the charged atomic and neutral molecul
573  
574   \section{\label{app-sol10}Strong NaCl Solution}
575  
576 < 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$1.1 M). The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The force and torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
576 > The bridging of the charged atomic and neutral molecular systems was
577 > furthered by considering a high ionic strength system consisting of 40
578 > ions in the 1000 SPC/E water solvent ($\approx$1.1 M). The results for
579 > the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector magnitude
580 > comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The force and
581 > torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in table
582 > \ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and
583 > switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are
584 > investigated.
585  
586   \begin{table}[htbp]
587     \centering
588 <   \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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}  
588 >   \caption{Regression results for the strong NaCl solution
589 > system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force
590 > vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom
591 > set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force,
592 > GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where
593 > $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}        
594     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
595        \\
596        \toprule
# Line 542 | Line 678 | The final model system studied was 6 \AA\ sphere of Ar
678  
679   \section{\label{app-argon}Argon Sphere in Water}
680  
681 < 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.
681 > The final model system studied was 6 \AA\ sphere of Argon solvated by
682 > SPC/E water. The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force
683 > and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table
684 > \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The force and torque vector directionality
685 > results are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where
686 > the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc
687 > sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
688  
689   \begin{table}[htbp]
690     \centering
691 <   \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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}    
691 >   \caption{Regression results for the 6 \AA\ argon sphere in liquid
692 > water system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set),
693 > force vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes
694 > (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted
695 > Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where
696 > $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}        
697     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
698        \\
699        \toprule
# Line 598 | Line 745 | RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.988 & 0.997 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.
745  
746   \begin{table}[htbp]
747     \centering
748 <   \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.}
748 >   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular
749 > distributions of the force and torque vectors in the 6 \AA\ sphere of
750 > argon in liquid water system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted
751 > Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF =
752 > Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group
753 > Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF = Group Switched Shifted Force.}  
754     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
755        \\
756        \toprule
# Line 637 | Line 789 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.173 & 0.292 & 0.113 & 3.452 & 1.347 &
789   \bibliographystyle{jcp2}
790   \bibliography{electrostaticMethods}
791  
792 < \end{document}
792 > \end{document}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines