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 2642 by chrisfen, Mon Mar 20 15:52:52 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: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.
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 81 | Line 97 | RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.989 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.
97   RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.989 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.999 \\
98        \bottomrule
99     \end{tabular}
100 <   \label{tab:spceMag}
100 >   \label{tab:spce}
101   \end{table}
102  
87 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.
88
89 The {\sc sf} method displays energetic and dynamic results very similar to SPME under undamped to moderately damped conditions.  The quality seems to degrade in the overdamped case ($\alpha = 0.3 \AA^{-1}$) to values identical to {\sc sp}, so it is important not to get carried away with the use of damping.  A cutoff radius choice of 12 \AA\ or higher is recommended, primarily due to the energy gap results of interest in Monte Carlo (MC) calculations.
90
91 The group switched cutoff (GSC) and reaction field (RF) methods seem to have very similar behavior, with the preference given to RF for the improved energy gap results. Neither mimics the energetics of SPME as well as the {\sc sp} (with moderate damping) and {\sc sf} methods, and the results seem relatively independent of cutoff radius.  The dynamics for both methods, however, are quite good.  Both methods utilize switching functions, which correct and discontinuities in the potential and forces, a possible reason for the improved results.  It is interesting to compare the PC with the GSC cases, and recognize the significant improvement that group based cutoffs and switching functions provide.  This as been recognized in previous studies,\cite{Andrea83,Steinbach94} and is a useful tactic for stably incorporating local area electrostatic effects.
92
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 126 | Line 141 | The directionality of the force and torque vectors sho
141     \label{tab:spceAng}
142   \end{table}
143  
144 < The directionality of the force and torque vectors show a lot of parallels with the magnitude results in table \ref{tab:spceMag}.
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
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 + 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
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 179 | Line 248 | RF  &     & 0.994 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.
248   RF  &     & 0.994 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
249        \bottomrule
250     \end{tabular}
251 <   \label{tab:iceTab}
251 >   \label{tab:ice}
252   \end{table}
253  
254   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 215 | Line 284 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 2.124 & 0.132 & 0.069 & 0.919 & 0.263 &
284        & 0.3 & 0.251 & 0.251 & 0.259 & 2.387 & 2.395 & 2.328 \\
285        \bottomrule
286     \end{tabular}
287 <   \label{tab:iceTabAng}
287 >   \label{tab:iceAng}
288   \end{table}
289  
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
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
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 233 | Line 330 | SP  & 0.0 & 0.937 & 0.996 & 0.880 & 0.995 & 0.971 & 0.
330              Method & $\alpha$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ \\
331              \midrule
332   PC  &     & -0.008 & 0.000 & -0.049 & 0.005 & -0.136 & 0.020 \\
333 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.937 & 0.996 & 0.880 & 0.995 & 0.971 & 0.999 \\
334 <    & 0.1 & 1.004 & 0.999 & 0.958 & 1.000 & 0.928 & 0.994 \\
333 > SP  & 0.0 & 0.928 & 0.996 & 0.931 & 0.998 & 0.950 & 0.999 \\
334 >    & 0.1 & 0.977 & 0.998 & 0.998 & 1.000 & 0.997 & 1.000 \\
335      & 0.2 & 0.960 & 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 < SF  & 0.0 & 1.001 & 1.000 & 0.949 & 1.000 & 1.008 & 1.000 \\
338 <    & 0.1 & 1.025 & 1.000 & 0.960 & 1.000 & 0.929 & 0.994 \\
337 > SF  & 0.0 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.997 & 1.000 \\
338 >    & 0.1 & 1.021 & 1.000 & 1.024 & 1.000 & 1.007 & 1.000 \\
339      & 0.2 & 0.966 & 1.000 & 0.813 & 0.996 & 0.811 & 0.954 \\
340      & 0.3 & 0.671 & 0.994 & 0.439 & 0.929 & 0.535 & 0.831 \\
341              \midrule
342   PC  &     & 1.103 & 0.000 & 0.989 & 0.000 & 0.802 & 0.000 \\
343 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.976 & 0.983 & 1.001 & 0.991 & 0.985 & 0.995 \\
344 <    & 0.1 & 0.996 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 0.996 \\
343 > SP  & 0.0 & 0.973 & 0.981 & 0.975 & 0.988 & 0.979 & 0.992 \\
344 >    & 0.1 & 0.987 & 0.992 & 0.993 & 0.998 & 0.997 & 0.999 \\
345      & 0.2 & 0.993 & 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 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.997 & 0.998 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.999 & 1.000 \\
348 <    & 0.1 & 1.001 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 0.996 & 0.996 \\
347 > SF  & 0.0 & 0.996 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 0.998 & 1.000 \\
348 >    & 0.1 & 1.000 & 0.997 & 1.001 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
349      & 0.2 & 0.994 & 0.996 & 0.985 & 0.988 & 0.986 & 0.981 \\
350      & 0.3 & 0.956 & 0.956 & 0.940 & 0.912 & 0.948 & 0.929 \\
351        \bottomrule
352     \end{tabular}
353 <   \label{tab:meltTab}
353 >   \label{tab:melt}
354   \end{table}
355  
356   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 278 | Line 375 | SF  & 0.0 & 1.693 & 0.603 & 0.256 \\
375      & 0.3 & 23.734 & 67.305 & 57.252 \\
376        \bottomrule
377     \end{tabular}
378 <   \label{tab:meltTabAng}
378 >   \label{tab:meltAng}
379   \end{table}
380  
381 + The molten NaCl system shows the a
382 +
383   \section{\label{app-salt}NaCl Crystal}
384  
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 316 | Line 427 | SF  & 0.0 & 1.002 & 0.983 & 0.997 & 0.994 & 0.991 & 0.
427      & 0.3 & 0.950 & 0.952 & 0.950 & 0.953 & 0.950 & 0.953 \\
428        \bottomrule
429     \end{tabular}
430 <   \label{tab:saltTab}
430 >   \label{tab:salt}
431   \end{table}
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 341 | Line 456 | SF  & 0.0 & 10.025 & 3.555 & 1.648 \\
456      & 0.3 & 31.120 & 31.105 & 31.029 \\
457        \bottomrule
458     \end{tabular}
459 <   \label{tab:saltTabAng}
459 >   \label{tab:saltAng}
460   \end{table}
461  
462   \section{\label{app-sol1}Weak NaCl Solution}
463  
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 395 | Line 527 | RF  &     & 0.984 & 0.975 & 0.996 & 0.995 & 0.998 & 0.
527   RF  &     & 0.984 & 0.975 & 0.996 & 0.995 & 0.998 & 0.998 \\
528        \bottomrule
529     \end{tabular}
530 <   \label{tab:sol1Tab}
530 >   \label{tab:solnWeak}
531   \end{table}
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 431 | Line 568 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.541 & 0.301 & 0.096 & 6.407 & 1.316 &
568        & 0.3 & 0.954 & 0.759 & 0.780 & 12.337 & 7.684 & 7.849 \\
569        \bottomrule
570     \end{tabular}
571 <   \label{tab:sol1TabAng}
571 >   \label{tab:solnWeakAng}
572   \end{table}
573  
574   \section{\label{app-sol10}Strong NaCl Solution}
575  
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 485 | Line 637 | RF  &     & 0.949 & 0.939 & 0.988 & 0.988 & 0.992 & 0.
637   RF  &     & 0.949 & 0.939 & 0.988 & 0.988 & 0.992 & 0.993 \\
638        \bottomrule
639     \end{tabular}
640 <   \label{tab:sol10Tab}
640 >   \label{tab:solnStr}
641   \end{table}
642  
643   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 521 | Line 673 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 2.494 & 0.546 & 0.217 & 16.391 & 3.230 &
673        & 0.3 & 1.752 & 1.454 & 1.451 & 23.587 & 14.390 & 14.245 \\
674        \bottomrule
675     \end{tabular}
676 <   \label{tab:sol10TabAng}
676 >   \label{tab:solnStrAng}
677   \end{table}
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
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 575 | Line 740 | RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.988 & 0.997 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.
740   RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.988 & 0.997 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.998 \\
741        \bottomrule
742     \end{tabular}
743 <   \label{tab:argonTab}
743 >   \label{tab:argon}
744   \end{table}
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 611 | Line 781 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.173 & 0.292 & 0.113 & 3.452 & 1.347 &
781        & 0.3 & 0.814 & 0.825 & 0.816 & 8.325 & 8.447 & 8.132 \\
782        \bottomrule
783     \end{tabular}
784 <   \label{tab:argonTabAng}
784 >   \label{tab:argonAng}
785   \end{table}
786  
787   \newpage
# Line 619 | 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