RE: force field name

From: Peter Gannett <>
Date: Thu 15 Aug 2002 19:03:52 -0400

I'm don't know the answer to this but I had always just assumed that the
parm94.dat field was first implemented in 1994 but the paper that
describe it was published in 1995 - hence amber95 force field. Just a


>>> "Yong Duan" <> 08/15/02 12:11PM >>>

"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".


> -----Original Message-----
> From: A. Hungie []
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 9:51 AM
> To:
> Subject: force field name
> Dear All,
> I used force field "parm94.dat" for my MD simulations. As I have seen
> several papers, some authers cited to "Cornell et al. force field",
> 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:
Received on Thu Aug 15 2002 - 16:03:52 PDT
Custom Search