On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:13:53 -0800, James Holton jmhol...@lbl.gov said:
should we call it? I nominate the Born after Max Born who did
so much fundamental and far-reaching work on the nature of
disorder in crystal lattices. The unit then has the symbol B,
which will make it
I second that... are there committees that ratify these things? phx
James Holton wrote:
Many textbooks describe the B factor as having units of square
Angstrom (A^2), but then again, so does the mean square atomic
displacement u^2, and B = 8*pi^2*u^2. This can become confusing if
one
Hi James,
James Holton wrote:
Many textbooks describe the B factor as having units of square Angstrom
(A^2), but then again, so does the mean square atomic displacement u^2,
and B = 8*pi^2*u^2. This can become confusing if one starts to look at
derived units that have started to come out of
Hi Marc
Not at all, one uses units that are convenient. By your reasoning we
should get rid of Å, atmospheres, AU, light years... They exist not to
be obnoxious, but because they're handy for a large number of people in
their specific situations.
Sounds familiar...
phx
Marc SCHILTZ
I think that you should suggest a new unit of 10^(-11) m, a JHm
perhaps. If it is convenient to have B in A^2 then u^2 should be
in JHm^2.
Adam
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, James Holton wrote:
Many textbooks describe the B factor as having units of square Angstrom
(A^2), but then again, so does
Hello,
on two recently installed Linux boxes (PC, i7) with Debian testing
(squeeze),
arp warp classic does not run but produces the following log-file:
--- 8 snip -
#CCP4I VERSION CCP4Interface 2.0.5
#CCP4I SCRIPT LOG arp_warp
#CCP4I DATE 20 Nov 2009
Hi James
If we're going to sort out the units we need to get the terminology
right too. The mean square atomic displacement already has a symbol U =
u^2 (or to be precise Ueq as we're talking about isotropic
displacements here), and u is conventionally not defined as the RMS
displacement as you
Of course, for SI political correctness we should be using nm^2 anyway. This
would add more confusion to a situation that most people don't worry about
anyway.
Pete
On 20 Nov 2009, at 11:05, Ian Tickle wrote:
Hi James
If we're going to sort out the units we need to get the terminology
Frank von Delft wrote:
Hi Marc
Not at all, one uses units that are convenient. By your reasoning we
should get rid of Å, atmospheres, AU, light years... They exist not to
be obnoxious, but because they're handy for a large number of people in
their specific situations.
Hi Frank,
I think
Eh? m and Å are related by the dimensionless quantity 10,000,000,000.
Vive la révolution!
Marc SCHILTZ wrote:
Frank von Delft wrote:
Hi Marc
Not at all, one uses units that are convenient. By your reasoning we
should get rid of Å, atmospheres, AU, light years... They exist not
to be
But in this case you are no longer defining distances but some other arbitrary
quantity, like vendors do when they convert a small computer speaker into a
rockband PA by using PMPO instead of music power.
Herman
-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board
Scientific Programmer
MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology
Cambridge
£20,074 – £27,271 per annum
A two year position is available for a programmer to continue the
development of a new Graphical User Interface for a widely used
program package to process X-ray diffraction data from crystals of
X-Ray Facility Scientist
MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology
Cambridge
£26,022 - £31,758 per annum
We wish to recruit an Investigator Scientist to join the MRC
Laboratory of Molecular Biology X-ray facility in Cambridge, UK. You
will provide support for a range of projects involving X-ray
Hi Tim,
First, we do not have access to Debian squeeze so I am afraid I cant
say much about it.
The gui asks about the Wilson plot, and, when run as 'run and view com
file' shows the script for mtzdump.
The 'run and view command file' will not work with the way that ARP/
wARP Classic
Yes, but Å is really only just tolerated.
It has evaded the Guillotine - for the time being ;-)
Frank von Delft wrote:
Eh? m and Å are related by the dimensionless quantity 10,000,000,000.
Vive la révolution!
Marc SCHILTZ wrote:
Frank von Delft wrote:
Hi Marc
Not at all, one uses
On 19 Nov 2009, at 09:34, Anastassis Perrakis wrote:
Dear all,
I am risking life and limb here, and possibly wining a first row seat to
'Morten's Inferno' for modelers!
I want a software that will do some docking of a flexible ligand to a rigid
protein model. Consensus google search
What a funny pleasant piece of discussion !
Given any physical quantity Something, having any kind of dimension
(even as awful as inches^2*gallons*pounds^-3)
Would it exist any room for a discussion about the dimension of
2*Something ? And what about 1*Something ?
Philippe Dumas
What a funny pleasant piece of discussion !
Given any physical quantity Something, having any kind of dimension (even
as awful as inches^2*gallons*pounds^-3)
Would it exist any room for a discussion about the dimension of 2*Something
? And what about 1*Something ?
(1) You can always
Dear All,
Great news: The Publisher, Garland Science, has kindly
offered up to 5 additional books, so I will lower the winning threshold
to 100 tickets. That means we have already a second round winner (announced
later on the web page) and all entries posted past 1925 PST on Nov 19
play
Hi,
Since the newest upgrade of analysis, I get this warning message once in
a while:
Dimensions 1 and 3 are directly bound but resonance 7LysCd is already
bound to 7LysHdb not 7LysHda Continue with assignement?
I understand what it means and I'm ok with that. I'm wondering if
there's a way to
'Allo! 'Allo!
I suspect that you are looking for the CCPN mailing list rather than the CCP4
one. You have just confused thousands of innocent crystallographers!
--dvd
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Julien Litt?rature wrote:
Hi,
Since the newest upgrade of analysis, I get this warning message once
And a few guilty ones.
-
===
You can't possibly be a scientist if you mind people
thinking that you're a fool. - Wonko the Sane
===
Second Winner: Tara Davis, UCSC -congratulations!
http://www.ruppweb.org/Garland/Warren_raffle.htm
77 to go for #3
I'll stop these annoying updates to the bb now -
you can follow on twitter or face book using
the Icons on my home page http://www.ruppweb.org/
Thx, BR
Dear bb-ers,
I am trying to have a gene synthesized and found out that it forms an 11-bp
hairpin. Does that complicate expression? Would it be better to try and
disrupt it by altering codon usage to improve expression?
Thank you in advance,
Sangeetha.
No No No! This is not what I meant at all!
I am not suggesting the creation of a new unit, but rather that we name
a unit that is already in widespread use. This unit is A^2/(8*pi^2)
which has dimensions of length^2 and it IS the unit of B factor. That
is, every PDB file lists the B
25 matches
Mail list logo
