Fixed bug in PF6- angle parameters #34
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The angle parameters for PF6- in the CL&P forcefield only work if the 180º F-P-F angles are not included in the calculation. Replacing them with an equivalent periodic SHAPES-like potential almost works; however, since 0º is a valid angle and there are no 1-3 nonbonds, nothing keeps the F atoms apart. This is solved using a tabulated potential based on the SHAPES potential but with an added 1-3 repulsion large enough that the gradient is always pusing small angles apart, but not large enough to affect the minimum at 90º.