Kspace warnings in GCMC simulation

Dear lammps users and developers,

I am performing a GCMC simulation to adsorb CO2 on a metal organic framework. I receive the following warnings at first of the simulation:

WARNING: Fix gcmc using full_energy option (…/fix_gcmc.cpp:485)
0 atoms in group FixGCMC:gcmc_exclusion_group:Isot
0 atoms in group FixGCMC:rotation_gas_atoms:Isot
WARNING: Fix gcmc is being applied to the default group all (…/fix_gcmc.cpp:690)
WARNING: One or more atoms are time integrated more than once (…/modify.cpp:279)
WARNING: Neighbor exclusions used with KSpace solver may give inconsistent Coulombic energies (…/neighbor.cpp:471)
Neighbor list info …
update every 1 steps, delay 0 steps, check yes
WARNING: Using kspace solver on system with no charge (…/kspace.cpp:289)

All of the atoms in adsorbent and molecule system have atomic charge, but I face these warnings. Which warning is important and how I can correct it? Thank you so much.

Best regards,
Mina

Dear lammps users and developers,

I am performing a GCMC simulation to adsorb CO2 on a metal organic framework. I receive the following warnings at first of the simulation:

WARNING: Fix gcmc using full_energy option (../fix_gcmc.cpp:485)

this is normal with kspace active. you cannot avoid it. it will
negatively impact performance.

0 atoms in group FixGCMC:gcmc_exclusion_group:Isot
0 atoms in group FixGCMC:rotation_gas_atoms:Isot

WARNING: Fix gcmc is being applied to the default group all (../fix_gcmc.cpp:690)

is this really what you want? this is in conflict with your description.

WARNING: One or more atoms are time integrated more than once (../modify.cpp:279)

this is *very* bad.

WARNING: Neighbor exclusions used with KSpace solver may give inconsistent Coulombic energies (../neighbor.cpp:471)

this is normal when kspace is active.

Neighbor list info ...
  update every 1 steps, delay 0 steps, check yes
WARNING: Using kspace solver on system with no charge (../kspace.cpp:289)

All of the atoms in adsorbent and molecule system have atomic charge, but I face these warnings. Which warning is important and how I can correct it? Thank you so much.

if LAMMPS detects, there are no charged atoms in your system, then
this is the case. if you believe this has to be different, then there
is something wrong with your input/data

in general, it is *YOUR* job to determine what is important and what
is not. other people can just guess and point out big and obvious
mistakes, but not subtle and not easy to detect errors. that is why
people need to run test calculations to validate their inputs and
figure out how to use specific methodology step by step. no yay-or-nay
from a mailing list can replace that.

axel.