Why is the energy decreasing in my atom simulation?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ebrattr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a simulation of a long chain of atoms, focusing on energy conservation within the system. Participants explore the implications of using the Lennard-Jones potential, constraints on bond lengths and angles, and the integration method employed. The conversation includes technical inquiries about forces, frames of reference, and potential energy considerations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes simulating a chain of atoms with constraints on bond lengths and angles, using the Lennard-Jones potential and a classical Runge-Kutta method for integration.
  • Another participant suggests that energy conservation in a rotating frame requires accounting for inertial forces, specifically the potential energy due to centrifugal force.
  • Clarifications arise regarding the absence of velocity-dependent forces and the participant's understanding of their simulation's frame of reference.
  • Questions are raised about the implementation of constraints and whether an angular potential is included in the simulation.
  • Participants inquire about the use of cutoffs for the Lennard-Jones potential and the effects of varying the time step in the simulation.
  • One participant identifies a potential issue with how total energy is computed in the internal cycle of the simulation, suggesting a misunderstanding in the indexing of particles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the simulation setup and energy conservation principles. There is no consensus on the cause of the energy decrease, and multiple viewpoints on the implications of using a rotating frame and the treatment of forces are present.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the need for clarity on the definitions of forces and constraints, as well as the implications of the chosen integration method and potential energy calculations. Some assumptions about the simulation's parameters remain unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in atomistic simulations, energy conservation in physical systems, and the application of the Lennard-Jones potential in computational modeling.

ebrattr
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to simulate a long chain of atoms where I restrict the bond (length between two consecutive atoms) and angle (between three consecutive atoms). Therefore, if I want to simulate N particles, then I have N+3 degrees of freedom. The only interactions between atoms is due to Lennard-Jones Potential.
I am using the classical Runge-Kutta fourth order method to integrate the equations. But, I got that the energy is always decreasing and then it keeps constant, like in the picture shown below.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3757/examplexy.png

What can I do to keep constant the energy ?

What is happening ? I'm new with the topic. My english is not that good, so if you do not understand something, just let me know it.
Thanks !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
What velocity dependent forces do you have exactelly? If you have Coriolis forces then you are obviously in a rotating frame. To get energy conservation in a rotating frame you have to include the potential energy due to the inertial centrifugal force. If the angular velocity of the frame is not constant, you can't expect energy to be consereved at all.
 
A.T. said:
What velocity dependent forces do you have exactelly? If you have Coriolis forces then you are obviously in a rotating frame. To get energy conservation in a rotating frame you have to include the potential energy due to the inertial centrifugal force. If the angular velocity of the frame is not constant, you can't expect energy to be consereved at all.

No, I don't have velocity dependent forces, because my only forces are due to a Lennard-Jones Potential. I was a little confused. What I do really have is a rotating frame. Got it. I was not including the potential energy due to inertial centrifugal force. I was just including, kinetick energies ([itex]\dfrac{1}{2}mv^2[/itex]) and the corresponding LJ potential. However, these velocities are the global velocities of the particles.

Thanks !
 
Last edited:
ebrattr said:
No, I don't have velocity dependent forces, because my only forces are due to a Lennard-Jones Potential. I was a little confused. What I do really have is a rotating frame.
In a rotating frame you have inertial forces too (Centrifugal and Coriolis). And Coriolis is velocity dependent, but it is not doing any work, so it is irrelevant for Energy conservation.
ebrattr said:
However, these velocities are the global velocities of the particles.
To make an energy analysis you have to transform every thing into one frame.
 
Can you post your program?
 
Yeah, I compute all the velocities to one frame, my global frame.
 
ebrattr said:
Yeah, I compute all the velocities to one frame, my global frame.
And that global frame is rotating?
 
No. It is not rotating.
 
DrClaude said:
Can you post your program?

Yeah, off corse. But what part ? There many lines of code.
 
  • #10
How do you implement the constraints?
 
  • #11
DrClaude said:
How do you implement the constraints?

By setting every positiion in terms of those coordinates I mentioned before? I don't understand the question.
 
  • #12
I was asking about this
ebrattr said:
I'm trying to simulate a long chain of atoms where I restrict the bond (length between two consecutive atoms) and angle (between three consecutive atoms).
I took "restrict" to mean that you had constraints of the bond lengths and angles.

Do I understand correctly that you don't have an angular potential? Do you calculate the Lennard-Jones potential over all particle pairs?
 
  • #13
DrClaude said:
I was asking about this

I took "restrict" to mean that you had constraints of the bond lengths and angles.

Do I understand correctly that you don't have an angular potential? Do you calculate the Lennard-Jones potential over all particle pairs?

Yes. I do not have an angular potential. And I calculate Lennard Jones potential over all particle pairs, except those that have an angle or a bond.

In fact, in the most simple case, with [itex]M[/itex] chains and 2 particles for every chain, I get the same thing.

In fact, can we only discuss this particular case ? To see what is going on here.
 
  • #14
Before we get into the particulars, I have a couple more questions.

Do you use a cutoff for the LJ potential?

Have you tired changing the time step?
 
  • #15
DrClaude said:
Before we get into the particulars, I have a couple more questions.

Do you use a cutoff for the LJ potential?

Have you tired changing the time step?

Yeah I am tired changin the time step. And I'm not using a cutoff for the LJ potential.
 
  • #16
What is the smallest possible system you can simulate and what are the results then?
 
  • #17
I'll try to have a look at all that tomorrow.
 
  • #18
ebrattr said:
Forces:
[itex] \mathbf{F}_{1}^{1}=f_{LJ}(\mathbf{r}_{1}^{2},\mathbf{r}_{2}^{2},\mathbf{r}_{1}^{1})/m[/itex]
What are F, fLJ and m here?
 
  • #19
A.T. said:
What are F, fLJ and m here?

[itex]F_i^j[/itex] is the resultant force over the particle [itex]i[/itex] in the [itex]j[/itex]-chain. [itex]f_{LJ}[/itex] is the corresponding magnitude.
 
  • #20
ebrattr said:
[itex]F_i^j[/itex] is the resultant force over the particle [itex]i[/itex] in the [itex]j[/itex]-chain. [itex]f_{LJ}[/itex] is the corresponding magnitude.
The magnitude of what? And what is m?
 
  • #21
A.T. said:
The magnitude of what? And what is m?

Mass. Magnitude of the force due to Lennard Jones potential.
 
  • #22
ebrattr said:
Mass. Magnitude of the force due to Lennard Jones potential.
So you divide force by mass and get force again?
 
  • #23
A.T. said:
So you divide force by mass and get force again?

Suppose I have mass of 1 kg. This not real important.
 
  • #24
Thanks !
I have found the problem !, when I compute the Total energy, in the internal cycle, it is not [itex]k \neq j[/itex], it is instead [itex]k > j[/itex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
49K