>
> Only the original author can really say what was meant by the phrase
> quoted at the very top. My original read was the same as that of Ross,
> although it seems like unusually large basis set in which to do optimization.
> But Jiri is also correct in pointing out that this *is* a standard qchem
> notation; that interpretation, however, would imply the use of a very
> non-standard set of RESP charges. Absent definitive information, we're all
> just guessing.
>
> ...dac
Dear Dave,
I would also agree charges should be standardly HF/6-31G*
level, due to polarity of the charge distribution, etc.
As far as the terminology, however, I think I have never
seen a reversal of the standard QM notation in the literature.
Looks more complicated than it was at the beginning.....
Best wishes, Jiri
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to majordomo.scripps.edu
Received on Sun Nov 05 2006 - 06:07:12 PST
