For ‘standard refinement’ I typically cite the most recent general paper. In
the case of Refmac:
> REFMAC5 for the refinement of macromolecular crystal structures.
> Murshudov GN, Skubák P, Lebedev AA, Pannu NS, Steiner RA, Nicholls RA, Winn
> MD, Long F, Vagin AA.
> Acta Crystallogr D Biol Cry
Yes it seems there are some typos, like "refinemen[sic]."
But the general question remains: should authors really cite all of these
papers when Refmac is used? What's the best practice?
JPK
-Original Message-
From: Steiner, Roberto [mailto:roberto.stei...@kcl.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, Nov
shocking ! it should have been Steiner, RA (not Steiner R or Steiner, RS,)
plus the most recent one is missing from the list….!
REFMAC5 for the refinement of macromolecular crystal structures.
Murshudov GN, Skubák P, Lebedev AA, Pannu NS, Steiner RA, Nicholls RA, Winn MD,
Long F, Vagin AA.
Acta
I enjoyed reading the Dyson essay, but to me it smacks of
mathematical-battle-weary resignation, which to me is the general feeling of
those who assert that QM is only math. There is an experience during
physico-mathematical proofs of entering the blind "logic zone" in which the
world we know i
Ethan
My understanding is that one would have to have separate springs for each
electron in the atom. Only some would be at resonance for a particular driving
frequency. One would apply some sum for the total scattering of the atom.
Of course this is trying to give some physical description for t
