"Cornell et al force field" would be the one that Peter Kollman would
prefer, though it is commonly refered to as "parm94 force field". I have the
impression that the former is more "official".
yong
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A. Hungie [mailto:hungie01_at_hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 9:51 AM
> To: amber_at_heimdal.compchem.ucsf.edu
> Subject: force field name
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> I used force field "parm94.dat" for my MD simulations. As I have seen in
> several papers, some authers cited to "Cornell et al. force field", while
> some authers cited to "amber95 force field". I am a litle bit
> confuse that
> why not "amber94 force field" because of parm94.dat. I would like
> to refer
> force field name in my thesis. What name is correct? or can I use
> "amber95
> force field of Cornell et al."?
>
> Thank you very much in advance.
>
> Regards,
> Hungie
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Received on Thu Aug 15 2002 - 09:11:19 PDT
