|From:||Sonu Kumar <sonubwbs@...8...>|
|Date:||Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:21:28 +0000|
What you are suggesting I have done in my 2nd simulation with perturbations at only time=0. I wished to see how perturbations that act on every time step throughout affects the result of 2. And no I am not cloning at every timestep which would be same as
doing simulation no. 2 about millions of times. I just wanted to recreate 2 by supplying perturbations at every timestep.
I would see if I can make fix langevin work.
Thanks for help, Eric.
From: Eric Murphy <murphyericjames@...24...>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:14 PM
To: Sonu Kumar
Subject: Re: [lammps-users] Displacement Perturbations in lammps
You can probably still take Fix Langevin at least as a model to create a fix from - I haven't kept up with development of new features, but I don't think there is an out of the box solution - I'll let someone else answer that.
But food for thought - As far as I knew, Lyupanov exponents only make sense in terms of how fast trajectories diverge due to dynamics not stochastic terms for an infinitesimal perturbation as t->inf. So what do you hope to gain by supplying perturbations at every time-step? unless you're cloning every case after the perturbation and comparing trajectories of these quickly multiplying scenarios
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Sonu Kumar <sonubwbs@...8...> wrote: