Hi David<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">They have published a few paper on water and alcohols. The charm crew
<br>have done a few more. Amber is actually split into two IIRC, with point<br>dipoles as well as shell models (that means either or).</blockquote><div><br>I've found two papers for charmm polariability. But I'll only be able to try to find it in the library or to ask for the authors tomorrow at least. But thanks for the information! ;)
<br><br>On the other hand, I could not yet find any published material from amber using shell models. Is this only an "inside group" discussion?<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I think there is not a lot of difference, but shell models are easier to<br>implement.</blockquote><div><br>I think too. In reality, there is no "visible rational reason" for this fear of me, is more like a "feeling", so I'll try to find something more on it.
<br><br></div>But I do agree that it's much likely that the shell model is much easier to implement, if not faster to execute also. :)<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I am working on shell models a bit (not enough...)</blockquote><div><br>Me too. Specially cause this is long terms plans (2+ years from now).<br><br>But thanks a lot for all information, David. Helped a lot.<br><br>Sincerally yours,
<br><br>Jones</div></div>