--- trunk/tengDissertation/Langevin.tex	2006/07/17 20:01:05	2941
+++ trunk/tengDissertation/Langevin.tex	2006/07/18 15:23:09	2949
@@ -576,17 +576,7 @@ -0.1988 $\rm{\AA}$), as well as the resistance tensor,
 0.2057&0&0&0&3.219&10.7373\\
 \end{array}} \right).
 \]
-%\[
-%\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
-%0.9261 & 1.310e-14 & -7.292e-15&5.067e-14&0.08585&0.2057\\
-%3.968e-14& 0.9270&-0.007063& 0.08585&6.764e-14&4.846e-14\\
-%-6.561e-16&-0.007063&0.7494&0.2057&4.846e-14&1.5036e-14\\
-%5.067e-14&0.0858&0.2057& 58.64& 8.563e-13&-8.5736\\
-%0.08585&6.764e-14&4.846e-14&1.555e-12&48.30&3.219&\\
-%0.2057&4.846e-14&1.5036e-14&-3.904e-13&3.219&10.7373\\
-%\end{array}} \right).
-%\]
-
+where the units for translational, translation-rotation coupling and rotational tensors are $\frac{kcal \cdot fs}{mol \cdot \rm{\AA}^2}$, $\frac{kcal \cdot fs}{mol \cdot \rm{\AA} \cdot rad}$ and $\frac{kcal \cdot fs}{mol \cdot rad^2}$ respectively.
 Curves of the velocity auto-correlation functions in
 Fig.~\ref{langevin:vacf} were shown to match each other very well.
 However, because of the stochastic nature, simulation using Langevin
@@ -594,8 +584,7 @@ probably due to the reason that the viscosity using in
 study the rotational motion of the molecules, we also calculated the
 auto-correlation function of the principle axis of the second GB
 particle, $u$. The discrepancy shown in Fig.~\ref{langevin:uacf} was
-probably due to the reason that the viscosity using in the
-simulations only partially preserved the dynamics of the system.
+probably due to the reason that we used the experimental viscosity directly instead of calculating bulk viscosity from simulation.
 
 \begin{figure}
 \centering