AMBER Archive (2002)

Subject: RE: force field name

From: Peter Gannett (pgannett_at_hsc.wvu.edu)
Date: Thu Aug 15 2002 - 18:03:52 CDT

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
guess...

Pete

>>> "Yong Duan" <yduan_at_udel.edu> 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".

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