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 2666 by chrisfen, Thu Mar 23 15:46:45 2006 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1   %\documentclass[prb,aps,twocolumn,tabularx]{revtex4}
2 < \documentclass[12pt]{article}
3 < \usepackage{endfloat}
2 > \documentclass[11pt]{article}
3 > %\usepackage{endfloat}
4   \usepackage{amsmath}
5   \usepackage{amssymb}
6   \usepackage{epsf}
# Line 23 | Line 23
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 {\sc spme}.  Each of
28 > the seven systems comprises its own section and has its own discussion
29 > and tabular listing of the results for the $\Delta E$, force and
30 > torque vector magnitude, and force and torque vector direction
31 > comparisons.
32  
33 < \section{\label{app-water}Liquid Water}
33 > \section{\label{app:water}Liquid Water}
34  
35 + The first system considered was liquid water at 300K using the SPC/E
36 + model of water.\cite{Berendsen87} The results for the energy gap
37 + comparisons and the force and torque vector magnitude comparisons are
38 + shown in table \ref{tab:spce}.  The force and torque vector
39 + directionality results are displayed separately in table
40 + \ref{tab:spceAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and
41 + switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are
42 + investigated.
43   \begin{table}[htbp]
44     \centering
45 <   \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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}  
45 >   \caption{Regression results for the liquid water system. Tabulated
46 > results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force vector magnitudes
47 > (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure
48 > Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group
49 > Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx
50 > \infty$).}      
51     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
52        \\
53        \toprule
# Line 49 | Line 67 | GSC &     & 0.918 & 0.862 & 0.852 & 0.756 & 0.801 & 0.
67      & 0.2 & 0.992 & 0.989 & 1.001 & 0.995 & 0.994 & 0.996 \\
68      & 0.3 & 0.984 & 0.980 & 0.996 & 0.985 & 0.982 & 0.987 \\
69   GSC &     & 0.918 & 0.862 & 0.852 & 0.756 & 0.801 & 0.700 \\
70 < RF  &     & 0.971 & 0.958 & 0.975 & 0.987 & 0.959 & 0.983 \\                              
53 <
70 > RF  &     & 0.971 & 0.958 & 0.975 & 0.987 & 0.959 & 0.983 \\                
71              \midrule
55
72   PC  &     & -1.647 & 0.000 & -0.127 & 0.000 & -0.979 & 0.000 \\
73   SP  & 0.0 & 0.735 & 0.368 & 0.813 & 0.537 & 0.865 & 0.659 \\
74      & 0.1 & 0.850 & 0.612 & 0.956 & 0.887 & 0.992 & 0.979 \\
# Line 64 | Line 80 | RF  &     & 0.999 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.
80      & 0.3 & 0.996 & 0.998 & 0.997 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 0.998 \\
81   GSC &     & 0.998 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
82   RF  &     & 0.999 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\          
67
83              \midrule
69
84   PC  &     & 2.387 & 0.000 & 0.183 & 0.000 & 1.282 & 0.000 \\
85   SP  & 0.0 & 0.847 & 0.543 & 0.904 & 0.694 & 0.935 & 0.786 \\
86      & 0.1 & 0.922 & 0.749 & 0.980 & 0.934 & 0.996 & 0.988 \\
# Line 80 | Line 94 | RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.989 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.
94   RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.989 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.999 \\
95        \bottomrule
96     \end{tabular}
97 <   \label{spceTabTMag}
97 >   \label{tab:spce}
98   \end{table}
99  
100   \begin{table}[htbp]
101     \centering
102 <   \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.}  
102 >   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular
103 > distributions of the force and torque vectors in the liquid water
104 > system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force,
105 > GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon
106 > \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF =
107 > Group Switched Shifted Force.}  
108     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
109        \\
110        \toprule
# Line 116 | Line 135 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.298 & 0.270 & 0.083 & 3.098 & 0.992 &
135        & 0.3 & 0.728 & 0.694 & 0.692 & 7.410 & 6.942 & 6.748 \\
136        \bottomrule
137     \end{tabular}
138 <   \label{spceTabAng}
138 >   \label{tab:spceAng}
139   \end{table}
140  
141 < \section{\label{app-ice}Solid Water: Ice I$_\textrm{c}$}
141 > The water results appear to parallel the combined results seen in the
142 > discussion section of the main paper.  There is good agreement with
143 > {\sc spme} in both energetic and dynamic behavior when using the {\sc sf}
144 > method with and without damping. The {\sc sp} method does well with an
145 > $\alpha$ around 0.2 \AA$^{-1}$, particularly with cutoff radii greater
146 > than 12 \AA. Overdamping the electrostatics reduces the agreement between both these methods and {\sc spme}.
147 >
148 > The pure cutoff ({\sc pc}) method performs poorly, again mirroring the
149 > observations in the main portion of this paper.  In contrast to the
150 > combined values, however, the use of a switching function and group
151 > based cutoffs really improves the results for these neutral water
152 > molecules.  The group switched cutoff ({\sc gsc}) does not mimic the
153 > energetics of {\sc spme} as well as the {\sc sp} (with moderate
154 > damping) and {\sc sf} methods, but the dynamics are quite good.  The
155 > switching functions corrects discontinuities in the potential and
156 > forces, leading to these improved results.  Such improvements with the
157 > use of a switching function has been recognized in previous
158 > studies,\cite{Andrea83,Steinbach94} and this proves to be a useful
159 > tactic for stably incorporating local area electrostatic effects.
160 >
161 > The reaction field ({\sc rf}) method simply extends upon the results
162 > observed in the {\sc gsc} case.  Both methods are similar in form
163 > (i.e. neutral groups, switching function), but {\sc rf} incorporates
164 > an added effect from the external dielectric. This similarity
165 > translates into the same good dynamic results and improved energetic
166 > agreement with {\sc spme}.  Though this agreement is not to the level
167 > of the moderately damped {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods, these results
168 > show how incorporating some implicit properties of the surroundings
169 > (i.e. $\epsilon_\textrm{S}$) can improve the solvent depiction.
170 >
171 > A final note for the liquid water system, use of group cutoffs and a
172 > switching function leads to noticeable improvements in the {\sc sp}
173 > and {\sc sf} methods, primarily in directionality of the force and
174 > torque vectors (table \ref{tab:spceAng}). The {\sc sp} method shows
175 > significant narrowing of the angle distribution when using little to
176 > no damping and only modest improvement for the recommended conditions
177 > ($\alpha$ = 0.2 \AA${-1}$ and $R_\textrm{c} \geqslant 12$~\AA).  The
178 > {\sc sf} method shows modest narrowing across all damping and cutoff
179 > ranges of interest.  When overdamping these methods, group cutoffs and
180 > the switching function do not improve the force and torque
181 > directionalities.
182  
183 + \section{\label{app:ice}Solid Water: Ice I$_\textrm{c}$}
184 +
185 + In addition to the disordered molecular system above, the ordered
186 + molecular system of ice I$_\textrm{c}$ was also considered. The
187 + results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector
188 + magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:ice}.  The force and
189 + torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in table
190 + \ref{tab:iceAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and
191 + switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are
192 + investigated.
193 +
194   \begin{table}[htbp]
195     \centering
196 <   \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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}    
196 >   \caption{Regression results for the ice I$_\textrm{c}$
197 > system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force
198 > vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom
199 > set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force,
200 > GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where
201 > $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}  
202     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
203        \\
204        \toprule
# Line 170 | Line 245 | RF  &     & 0.994 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.
245   RF  &     & 0.994 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
246        \bottomrule
247     \end{tabular}
248 <   \label{iceTab}
248 >   \label{tab:ice}
249   \end{table}
250  
251   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 206 | Line 281 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 2.124 & 0.132 & 0.069 & 0.919 & 0.263 &
281        & 0.3 & 0.251 & 0.251 & 0.259 & 2.387 & 2.395 & 2.328 \\
282        \bottomrule
283     \end{tabular}
284 <   \label{iceTabAng}
284 >   \label{tab:iceAng}
285   \end{table}
286  
287 < \section{\label{app-melt}NaCl Melt}
287 > Highly ordered systems are a difficult test for the pairwise methods
288 > in that they lack the periodicity term of the Ewald summation.  As
289 > expected, the energy gap agreement with {\sc spme} reduces for the
290 > {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods with parameters that were acceptable for
291 > the disordered liquid system.  Moving to higher $R_\textrm{c}$ helps
292 > improve the agreement, though at an increase in computational cost.
293 > The dynamics of this crystalline system (both in magnitude and
294 > direction) are little affected. Both methods still reproduce the Ewald
295 > behavior with the same parameter recommendations from the previous
296 > section.
297  
298 + It is also worth noting that {\sc rf} exhibits improved energy gap
299 + results over the liquid water system.  One possible explanation is
300 + that the ice I$_\textrm{c}$ crystal is ordered such that the net
301 + dipole moment of the crystal is zero.  With $\epsilon_\textrm{S} =
302 + \infty$, the reaction field incorporates this structural organization
303 + by actively enforcing a zeroed dipole moment within each cutoff
304 + sphere.  
305 +
306 + \section{\label{app:melt}NaCl Melt}
307 +
308 + A high temperature NaCl melt was tested to gauge the accuracy of the
309 + pairwise summation methods in a charged disordered system. The results
310 + for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector
311 + magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:melt}.  The force
312 + and torque vector directionality results are displayed separately in
313 + table \ref{tab:meltAng}, where the effect of group-based cutoffs and
314 + switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are
315 + investigated.
316 +
317   \begin{table}[htbp]
318     \centering
319     \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 327 | PC  &     & -0.008 & 0.000 & -0.049 & 0.005 & -0.136 &
327              Method & $\alpha$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ & slope & $R^2$ \\
328              \midrule
329   PC  &     & -0.008 & 0.000 & -0.049 & 0.005 & -0.136 & 0.020 \\
330 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.937 & 0.996 & 0.880 & 0.995 & 0.971 & 0.999 \\
331 <    & 0.1 & 1.004 & 0.999 & 0.958 & 1.000 & 0.928 & 0.994 \\
330 > SP  & 0.0 & 0.928 & 0.996 & 0.931 & 0.998 & 0.950 & 0.999 \\
331 >    & 0.1 & 0.977 & 0.998 & 0.998 & 1.000 & 0.997 & 1.000 \\
332      & 0.2 & 0.960 & 1.000 & 0.813 & 0.996 & 0.811 & 0.954 \\
333      & 0.3 & 0.671 & 0.994 & 0.439 & 0.929 & 0.535 & 0.831 \\
334 < SF  & 0.0 & 1.001 & 1.000 & 0.949 & 1.000 & 1.008 & 1.000 \\
335 <    & 0.1 & 1.025 & 1.000 & 0.960 & 1.000 & 0.929 & 0.994 \\
334 > SF  & 0.0 & 0.996 & 1.000 & 0.995 & 1.000 & 0.997 & 1.000 \\
335 >    & 0.1 & 1.021 & 1.000 & 1.024 & 1.000 & 1.007 & 1.000 \\
336      & 0.2 & 0.966 & 1.000 & 0.813 & 0.996 & 0.811 & 0.954 \\
337      & 0.3 & 0.671 & 0.994 & 0.439 & 0.929 & 0.535 & 0.831 \\
338              \midrule
339   PC  &     & 1.103 & 0.000 & 0.989 & 0.000 & 0.802 & 0.000 \\
340 < SP  & 0.0 & 0.976 & 0.983 & 1.001 & 0.991 & 0.985 & 0.995 \\
341 <    & 0.1 & 0.996 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.998 & 0.996 & 0.996 \\
340 > SP  & 0.0 & 0.973 & 0.981 & 0.975 & 0.988 & 0.979 & 0.992 \\
341 >    & 0.1 & 0.987 & 0.992 & 0.993 & 0.998 & 0.997 & 0.999 \\
342      & 0.2 & 0.993 & 0.996 & 0.985 & 0.988 & 0.986 & 0.981 \\
343      & 0.3 & 0.956 & 0.956 & 0.940 & 0.912 & 0.948 & 0.929 \\
344 < SF  & 0.0 & 0.997 & 0.998 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.999 & 1.000 \\
345 <    & 0.1 & 1.001 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 0.996 & 0.996 \\
344 > SF  & 0.0 & 0.996 & 0.997 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 0.998 & 1.000 \\
345 >    & 0.1 & 1.000 & 0.997 & 1.001 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
346      & 0.2 & 0.994 & 0.996 & 0.985 & 0.988 & 0.986 & 0.981 \\
347      & 0.3 & 0.956 & 0.956 & 0.940 & 0.912 & 0.948 & 0.929 \\
348        \bottomrule
349     \end{tabular}
350 <   \label{meltTab}
350 >   \label{tab:melt}
351   \end{table}
352  
353   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 269 | Line 372 | SF  & 0.0 & 1.693 & 0.603 & 0.256 \\
372      & 0.3 & 23.734 & 67.305 & 57.252 \\
373        \bottomrule
374     \end{tabular}
375 <   \label{meltTabAng}
375 >   \label{tab:meltAng}
376   \end{table}
377  
378 < \section{\label{app-salt}NaCl Crystal}
378 > The molten NaCl system shows more sensitivity to the electrostatic
379 > damping than the water systems. The most noticeable point is that the
380 > undamped {\sc sf} method does very well at replicating the {\sc spme}
381 > configurational energy differences and forces. Light damping appears
382 > to minimally improve the dynamics, but this comes with a deterioration
383 > of the energy gap results. In contrast, this light damping improves
384 > the {\sc sp} energy gaps and forces. Moderate and heavy electrostatic
385 > damping reduce the agreement with {\sc spme} for both methods. From
386 > these observations, the undamped {\sc sf} method is the best choice
387 > for disordered systems of charges.
388  
389 + \section{\label{app:salt}NaCl Crystal}
390 +
391 + A 1000K NaCl crystal was used to investigate the accuracy of the
392 + pairwise summation methods in an ordered system of charged
393 + particles. The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force
394 + and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table
395 + \ref{tab:salt}.  The force and torque vector directionality results
396 + are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:saltAng}, where the effect
397 + of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and
398 + {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
399 +
400   \begin{table}[htbp]
401     \centering
402 <   \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.}    
402 >   \caption{Regression results for the crystalline NaCl
403 > system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set) and
404 > force vector magnitudes (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted
405 > Potential, and SF = Shifted Force.}    
406     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
407        \\
408        \toprule
# Line 307 | Line 433 | SF  & 0.0 & 1.002 & 0.983 & 0.997 & 0.994 & 0.991 & 0.
433      & 0.3 & 0.950 & 0.952 & 0.950 & 0.953 & 0.950 & 0.953 \\
434        \bottomrule
435     \end{tabular}
436 <   \label{saltTab}
436 >   \label{tab:salt}
437   \end{table}
438  
439   \begin{table}[htbp]
440     \centering
441 <   \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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}        
441 >   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular
442 > distributions of the force vectors in the crystalline NaCl system.  PC
443 > = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group
444 > Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx
445 > \infty$).}      
446     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
447        \\
448        \toprule
# Line 332 | Line 462 | SF  & 0.0 & 10.025 & 3.555 & 1.648 \\
462      & 0.3 & 31.120 & 31.105 & 31.029 \\
463        \bottomrule
464     \end{tabular}
465 <   \label{saltTabAng}
465 >   \label{tab:saltAng}
466   \end{table}
467  
468 < \section{\label{app-sol1}Weak NaCl Solution}
468 > The crystalline NaCl system is the most challenging test case for the
469 > pairwise summation methods, as evidenced by the results in tables
470 > \ref{tab:salt} and \ref{tab:saltAng}. The undamped and weakly damped
471 > {\sc sf} methods with a 12 \AA\ cutoff radius seem to be the best
472 > choices. These methods match well with {\sc spme} across the energy
473 > gap, force magnitude, and force directionality tests.  The {\sc sp}
474 > method struggles in all cases, with the exception of good dynamics
475 > reproduction when using weak electrostatic damping with a large cutoff
476 > radius.
477  
478 + The moderate electrostatic damping case is not as good as we would
479 + expect given the good long-time dynamics results observed for this
480 + system. Since the data tabulated in table \ref{tab:salt} and
481 + \ref{tab:saltAng} are a test of instantaneous dynamics, this indicates
482 + that good long-time dynamics comes in part at the expense of
483 + short-time dynamics. Further indication of this comes from the full
484 + power spectra shown in the main text. It appears as though a
485 + distortion is introduced between 200 to 350 cm$^{-1}$ with increased
486 + $\alpha$.
487 +
488 + \section{\label{app:solnWeak}Weak NaCl Solution}
489 +
490 + In an effort to bridge the charged atomic and neutral molecular
491 + systems, Na$^+$ and Cl$^-$ ion charge defects were incorporated into
492 + the liquid water system. This low ionic strength system consists of 4
493 + ions in the 1000 SPC/E water solvent ($\approx$0.11 M). The results
494 + for the energy gap comparisons and the force and torque vector
495 + magnitude comparisons are shown in table \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The
496 + force and torque vector directionality results are displayed
497 + separately in table \ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where the effect of
498 + group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc sp} and {\sc
499 + sf} potentials are investigated.
500 +
501   \begin{table}[htbp]
502     \centering
503 <   \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.}      
503 >   \caption{Regression results for the weak NaCl solution
504 > system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force
505 > vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom
506 > set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force,
507 > GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF = Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon
508 > \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF =
509 > Group Switched Shifted Force.}  
510     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
511        \\
512        \toprule
# Line 386 | Line 553 | RF  &     & 0.984 & 0.975 & 0.996 & 0.995 & 0.998 & 0.
553   RF  &     & 0.984 & 0.975 & 0.996 & 0.995 & 0.998 & 0.998 \\
554        \bottomrule
555     \end{tabular}
556 <   \label{sol1Tab}
556 >   \label{tab:solnWeak}
557   \end{table}
558  
559   \begin{table}[htbp]
560     \centering
561 <   \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.}    
561 >   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular
562 > distributions of the force and torque vectors in the weak NaCl
563 > solution system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF =
564 > Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF = Reaction Field (where
565 > $\varepsilon \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group Switched Shifted
566 > Potential, and GSSF = Group Switched Shifted Force.}    
567     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
568        \\
569        \toprule
# Line 422 | Line 594 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.541 & 0.301 & 0.096 & 6.407 & 1.316 &
594        & 0.3 & 0.954 & 0.759 & 0.780 & 12.337 & 7.684 & 7.849 \\
595        \bottomrule
596     \end{tabular}
597 <   \label{sol1TabAng}
597 >   \label{tab:solnWeakAng}
598   \end{table}
599  
600 < \section{\label{app-sol10}Strong NaCl Solution}
600 > Because this system is a perturbation of the pure liquid water system,
601 > comparisons are best drawn between these two sets. The {\sc sp} and
602 > {\sc sf} methods are not significantly affected by the inclusion of a
603 > few ions. The aspect of cutoff sphere neutralization aids in the
604 > smooth incorporation of these ions; thus, all of the observations
605 > regarding these methods carry over from section \ref{app:water}. The
606 > differences between these systems are more visible for the {\sc rf}
607 > method. Though good force agreement is still maintained, the energy
608 > gaps show a significant increase in the data scatter. This foreshadows
609 > the breakdown of the method as we introduce charged inhomogeneities.
610  
611 + \section{\label{app:solnStr}Strong NaCl Solution}
612 +
613 + The bridging of the charged atomic and neutral molecular systems was
614 + further developed by considering a high ionic strength system
615 + consisting of 40 ions in the 1000 SPC/E water solvent ($\approx$1.1
616 + M). The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force and
617 + torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table
618 + \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The force and torque vector directionality
619 + results are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where
620 + the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc
621 + sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
622 +
623   \begin{table}[htbp]
624     \centering
625 <   \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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}  
625 >   \caption{Regression results for the strong NaCl solution
626 > system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set), force
627 > vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes (bottom
628 > set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted Force,
629 > GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where
630 > $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}        
631     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
632        \\
633        \toprule
# Line 476 | Line 674 | RF  &     & 0.949 & 0.939 & 0.988 & 0.988 & 0.992 & 0.
674   RF  &     & 0.949 & 0.939 & 0.988 & 0.988 & 0.992 & 0.993 \\
675        \bottomrule
676     \end{tabular}
677 <   \label{sol10Tab}
677 >   \label{tab:solnStr}
678   \end{table}
679  
680   \begin{table}[htbp]
# Line 512 | Line 710 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 2.494 & 0.546 & 0.217 & 16.391 & 3.230 &
710        & 0.3 & 1.752 & 1.454 & 1.451 & 23.587 & 14.390 & 14.245 \\
711        \bottomrule
712     \end{tabular}
713 <   \label{sol10TabAng}
713 >   \label{tab:solnStrAng}
714   \end{table}
715  
716 < \section{\label{app-argon}Argon Sphere in Water}
716 > The {\sc rf} method struggles with the jump in ionic strength. The
717 > configuration energy difference degrade to unusable levels while the
718 > forces and torques show a more modest reduction in the agreement with
719 > {\sc spme}. The {\sc rf} method was designed for homogeneous systems,
720 > and this attribute is apparent in these results.
721  
722 + The {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods require larger cutoffs to maintain
723 + their agreement with {\sc spme}. With these results, we still
724 + recommend no to moderate damping for the {\sc sf} method and moderate
725 + damping for the {\sc sp} method, both with cutoffs greater than 12
726 + \AA.
727 +
728 + \section{\label{app:argon}Argon Sphere in Water}
729 +
730 + The final model system studied was 6 \AA\ sphere of Argon solvated by
731 + SPC/E water. The results for the energy gap comparisons and the force
732 + and torque vector magnitude comparisons are shown in table
733 + \ref{tab:solnWeak}.  The force and torque vector directionality
734 + results are displayed separately in table \ref{tab:solnWeakAng}, where
735 + the effect of group-based cutoffs and switching functions on the {\sc
736 + sp} and {\sc sf} potentials are investigated.
737 +
738   \begin{table}[htbp]
739     \centering
740 <   \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 $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}    
740 >   \caption{Regression results for the 6 \AA\ argon sphere in liquid
741 > water system. Tabulated results include $\Delta E$ values (top set),
742 > force vector magnitudes (middle set) and torque vector magnitudes
743 > (bottom set).  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted Potential, SF = Shifted
744 > Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, and RF = Reaction Field (where
745 > $\varepsilon \approx \infty$).}        
746     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
747        \\
748        \toprule
# Line 566 | Line 789 | RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.988 & 0.997 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.
789   RF  &     & 0.993 & 0.988 & 0.997 & 0.995 & 0.999 & 0.998 \\
790        \bottomrule
791     \end{tabular}
792 <   \label{argonTab}
792 >   \label{tab:argon}
793   \end{table}
794  
795   \begin{table}[htbp]
796     \centering
797 <   \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.}
797 >   \caption{Variance results from Gaussian fits to angular
798 > distributions of the force and torque vectors in the 6 \AA\ sphere of
799 > argon in liquid water system.  PC = Pure Cutoff, SP = Shifted
800 > Potential, SF = Shifted Force, GSC = Group Switched Cutoff, RF =
801 > Reaction Field (where $\varepsilon \approx \infty$), GSSP = Group
802 > Switched Shifted Potential, and GSSF = Group Switched Shifted Force.}  
803     \begin{tabular}{@{} ccrrrrrr @{}}
804        \\
805        \toprule
# Line 602 | Line 830 | GSSF  & 0.0 & 1.173 & 0.292 & 0.113 & 3.452 & 1.347 &
830        & 0.3 & 0.814 & 0.825 & 0.816 & 8.325 & 8.447 & 8.132 \\
831        \bottomrule
832     \end{tabular}
833 <   \label{argonTabAng}
833 >   \label{tab:argonAng}
834   \end{table}
835  
836 < \end{document}
836 > This system appears not to show in any significant deviation in the
837 > previously observed results. The {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods give
838 > result qualities similar to those observed in section
839 > \ref{app:water}. The only significant difference is the improvement
840 > for the configuration energy differences for the {\sc rf} method. This
841 > is surprising in that we are introducing an inhomogeneity to the
842 > system; however, this inhomogeneity is charge-neutral and does not
843 > result in charged cutoff spheres. The charge-neutrality of the cutoff
844 > spheres, which the {\sc sp} and {\sc sf} methods explicitly enforce,
845 > seems to play a greater role in the stability of the {\sc rf} method
846 > than the required homogeneity of the environment.
847 >
848 > \newpage
849 >
850 > \bibliographystyle{jcp2}
851 > \bibliography{electrostaticMethods}
852 >
853 > \end{document}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines