Modelling bonds like strings or threads

I understood my mistake, but I don't think we can apply special_bonds with hertz/history model. Is there some other way to turn on the 1-2 interactions?

I understood my mistake, but I don't think we can apply special_bonds with
hertz/history model.

​i think differently and i already explained why and how. to reiterate,
special_bonds settings are *always* active and their default is 0.0 for
1-2, 1-3 and 1-4​. whether the individual pair style applies the scaling
factors or not is a different issue (they don't), but if you add bonds to a
system, the neighbor list code will remove the bonded pairs from the list
if the special_bonds settings are left to the default settings.

i have just explained this in a different e-mail to the list in the context
of many-body potentials.

rather than making speculative statements, i suggest you provide some
evidence that proves me wrong.

axel.

I didn’t say anything about you being wrong. I mean that I am using hertzian force model. Using special bonds, I can only turn on pairwise interactions between :

amber, dreiding, lj/coul, lj,etc.

Is there a way to turn on the 1-2 force of interactions between hertzian force model?

I didn't say anything about you being wrong. I mean that I am using
hertzian force model. Using special bonds, I can only turn on pairwise
interactions between :

amber, dreiding, lj/coul, lj,etc.

Is there a way to turn on the 1-2 force of interactions between hertzian
force model?

​again, you are speculating without proof or even studying the
documentation properly.
and again, you are wrong.

i've explained what you need to do already multiple times. i will not do it
again.

axel.

"The LJ factors are applied to the remaining terms that the potential calculates, whether they represent LJ interactions or not".

Okay, I understood. But just to be on the safe side, can you please confirm that if I turn on the special interactions as 1.0 1.0 1.0 then it must solve the issue?

"The LJ factors are applied to the remaining terms that the potential
calculates, whether *they represent LJ interactions or not".*

Okay, I understood. But just to be on the safe side, can you please
confirm that if I turn on the special interactions as 1.0 1.0 1.0 then it
must solve the issue?

if you *really* want to be on the safe side, then you don't ask a random
dude, whose statements you have repeatedly questioned, but rather construct
a trivial test system and prove it to yourself without a doubt. that is the
scientific way (and much less irritating to everybody else, too)​.

axel.