Did they explain why? Seems bogus to me.
On Jun 15, 2012, at 11:28, Albert <mailmd2011.gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 12:02 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>>> Moreover, the surface tension values probably should also have
>>>> something
>>>> to do with the cutoff we use..... I don't know whether Ross have any
>>>> comments on this aspects.
>> No it should NOT depend on the cutoff. Why would you think it should depend
>> on the cutoff?
>>
>> If it does then your cutoff is TOO SMALL, period!
>>
>> I suggest you check things carefully. Ultimately if you want to publish the
>> work you will need to defend the surface tension you used so you might as
>> well run a few hundred nanoseconds for the system you want to run with a
>> range of surface tension values and then you'll be able to provide a
>> justification of the value you used if a reviewer asks.
>
> that's strange, because in recent CAHRMM workshop, the speaker emphasize
> this issue and they state that the non-bonded cut off should influence
> the surface tension.....
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Fri Jun 15 2012 - 04:00:03 PDT
