From chemistry-request@server.ccl.net Wed May 17 01:29:57 2000 Received: from nmr-v.ioc.ac.ru (root@nmr-v.ioc.ac.ru [193.233.3.213]) by server.ccl.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA04001 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 01:29:56 -0400 Received: from cacr.ioc.ac.ru (val@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nmr-v.ioc.ac.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01234 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 09:29:23 +0400 Sender: val@nmr-v.ioc.ac.ru Message-ID: <39222E32.8F785C8D@cacr.ioc.ac.ru> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:29:22 +0400 From: Valentine Ananikov Reply-To: val@cacr.ioc.ac.ru Organization: IOC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i686) X-Accept-Language: ru, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CCL_post Subject: MP2/UMP2 vs B3LYP/UB3LYP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear CCL, I am a little surprised with the following problem and would be grateful for helpful comments. On a substituted carbene compound MP2/UMP2 optimization of singlet and triplet states respectively leads to energy gap of about 9 kcl/mol and low lying singlet state. However, in the case of B3LYP/UB3LYP optimized structures triplet state is more stable by approximately the same value. Geometry parameters are also different. Unfortunately, experimental data for this compound is not available. Is this a known thing ? any precedents ? Does anybody have an idea on the possible explanation and what accuracy one would expect from MP2 and B3LYP calculated s/t gaps? Thank you! best regards, Valentin. ==================================================================== , , , , Valentine P. Ananikov |\\\\ ////| /////| NMR Group | \\\|/// | ///// | ND Zelinsky Institute of Organic Chemistry | |~~~| | |~~~| | Leninsky Prospect 47 | |===| | |===| | Moscow 117913 | | | | | | | Russia | | A | | | Z | | \ | | / | | / e-mail: val@cacr.ioc.ac.ru \|===|/ |===|/ http://nmr.ioc.ac.ru/Staff/AnanikovVP/ '---' '---' Fax +7 (095)1355328 Phone +7 (095)9383536 ==================================================================== From chemistry-request@server.ccl.net Wed May 17 01:56:42 2000 Received: from myamlak.ch.uj.edu.pl (myamlak.ch.uj.edu.pl [149.156.71.18]) by server.ccl.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA04169 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 01:56:41 -0400 Received: from localhost (borowski@localhost) by myamlak.ch.uj.edu.pl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA02723; Wed, 17 May 2000 07:49:14 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 07:49:14 +0200 (MET DST) From: Tomasz Borowski X-Sender: borowski@myamlak.ch.uj.edu.pl To: Monica Concha cc: "chemistry@ccl.net" Subject: Re: CCL:Help In-Reply-To: <39218A8C.13B1D20B@uno.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear Monica, I've recently come across a similar problem with VO (4 sigma ground state). The problem was, that initial guess of occupied MO was totally wrong (the distribution of electrons between different irreps). As I'm using G98, the solution was quite easy: Guess=Alter (+ appropriate labes of MO to exchange), and that was enough to get the proper electronic state. Tomek Borowski Chemistry Department Jagiellonian Univ. Krakow On Tue, 16 May 2000, Monica Concha wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have been trying to optimize the vanadium dimer with multiplicity > of 3, using various dft methods. The problem is that depending on the > initial bond length, the dimer optimizes to different bond lengths with > different energies, and differ s**2 values. The bond lengths only > differ > by about 0.01 Angstroms but the energies differ by 35 kcal. The odd > thing is that the lowest energy corresponds to an s**2 value of 2.55 > rather than the expected value of 2.0. Any suggestions? > > -- > > Monica C. Concha > Research Associate > Dept. Of Chemistry > University of New Orleans > New Orleans LA 70148 > E-mail mconcha@uno.edu > > > > -= This is automatically added to each message by mailing script =- > CHEMISTRY@ccl.net -- To Everybody | CHEMISTRY-REQUEST@ccl.net -- To Admins > MAILSERV@ccl.net -- HELP CHEMISTRY or HELP SEARCH > CHEMISTRY-SEARCH@ccl.net -- archive search | Gopher: gopher.ccl.net 70 > Ftp: ftp.ccl.net | WWW: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/ | Jan: jkl@ccl.net > > > > > > From chemistry-request@server.ccl.net Wed May 17 04:07:39 2000 Received: from newmail.DKFZ-Heidelberg.DE (newmail.inet.dkfz-heidelberg.de [193.174.53.39]) by server.ccl.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA04931 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 04:07:39 -0400 Received: from husar.inet.dkfz-heidelberg.de (husar.inet.dkfz-heidelberg.de [193.174.53.44]) by newmail.DKFZ-Heidelberg.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3/DKFZ-8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09886 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 10:05:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (tajkhors@localhost) by husar.inet.dkfz-heidelberg.de (8.9.3/8.9.3/DKFZ-8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01001 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 10:05:28 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:05:28 +0200 (MET DST) From: Emad Tajkhorshid To: ccl CCL Subject: Summary of replies: resonance effect in O and S Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi This is a summary of the answers I got from CCL: ********************************************************************* Question: > Hi > > I am looking for some references (experiment or calculations, text book, > etc.) comparing the ability of O and S in sharing the lone pair with the > pi-electronic system. As far as I remmeber, S was a weaker electron > donating group (lower resonance effect), although its electronegativity is > less. Any comment is welcome. > Emad ********************************************************************* From: Leticia Gonzalez Herrero To: Emad Tajkhorshid Subject: Re: CCL:resonance effect in O and S Dear Emad, mabye this helps? Gonzlez, L., M, O. and Yez, M. (1997): High level ab initio calculations on the intramolecular hydrogen bond in thiomalonaldehyde. J. Phys. Chem. 101, 9710-9719. thiomalonaldehyde contains both O and S with pi system,so we made some discussion about your question. Good luck. Leticia =-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dr. Leticia Gonzalez Tel: ()49 30 838 520 97 Freie Universitaet Berlin Fax: ()49 30 838 547 92 Institut fuer Chemie Room: 35.17 Takustrasse 3 leti@chemie.fu-berlin.de D-14195 Berlin http://userpage.chemie.fu-berlin.de/~leti =-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= If you find a solution and become attached to it, the solution may become your next problem. ********************************************************************* From: Yirong Mo To: E.Tajkhorshid@DKFZ-Heidelberg.de Cc: ymo@chem.umn.edu Subject: Re: CCL:resonance effect in O and S Hi, Emad: I did some calcualtions on 5-member rings and their corresponding linear forms using recently developed block-localized wavefunction (J.Chem.Phys. 109, 1687(1998) and JACS 121, 5737(1999)), however, the manscript is still to be worked out. In these calculations, I did compare the resonance effect of O via S (also N via P etc). For the cyclic C4H4X, the vertical resonance energies for X=O and S are -35.8 and -31.0 kcal/mol, while for linear C4H6X, the resonance energies are -14.8 and -9.2 kcal/mol with 6-31G(d). Thus, We may conclude that S is a slightly weaker electron donating group. On the other hand, Prof.Schleyer's NICS calculations give the data -13.6 and -13.9 ppm for C4H4O and C4H4S, respectively, suggesting that O and S have similar donating ability. Hope this may help you a little. Wishes, Yirong Yirong Mo, PhD, Research Associate Department of Chemistry University of Minnesota ********************************************************************* From: Piotr Paneth To: Emad Tajkhorshid Subject: Re: CCL:resonance effect in O and S Hi look into papers of Perry Fry from mid 80'. I've been trying to calculate =POS- using continuum solvent models and didn't see yet any level that significantly differentiate charge distribution with the change of polarity although Perry's and our own experimental results (isotope effects) suggest that this should be so. Will be glad to see what responses you've got. Cheers, Piotr *********************************************************************** Professor Piotr Paneth Department of Chemsitry, Technical University Zeromskiego 116, 90-924 Lodz, Poland fax/phone: (+48 42) 6313199 fax: (+48 42) 6365008 Thanx to everybody for replying. Regards Emad ********************************************************************* E. Tajkhorshid http://genome.dkfz-heidelberg.de/users/emad German Cancer Research Center; DKFZ Email: E.Tajkhorshid@dkfz.de Dept. Molecular Biophysics (H0200) Tel: +49 6221 42 2340 P.O.Box 101949, 69009 Heidelberg, Germany FAX: +49 6221 42 2333 ********************************************************************* * "Science is talking to each other" * ********************************************************************* From chemistry-request@server.ccl.net Wed May 17 05:57:10 2000 Received: from server.biokemi.su.se (server.biokemi.su.se [130.237.179.5]) by server.ccl.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id FAA05411 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 05:57:09 -0400 Received: from dhcp-242.biokemi.su.se (unverified [130.237.179.242]) by server.biokemi.su.se (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 17 May 2000 11:58:38 +0200 From: Xiao-Ping Zhang Reply-To: zhang@biokemi.su.se To: "chemistry@ccl.net" Subject: Autodock 3 - non-integral charge Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:45:12 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00051711562700.01636@dhcp-242.biokemi.su.se> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Autodock users, I would appreciate very much if somebody allow me to share his experience on fixing the "Non-integral charge" of molecule (especially the ligand). Thank you for your help! Sincerely yours, Xiao-Ping ****************************** Xiao-Ping Zhang Department of Biochemistry Arrhenius Laboratories of Natural Sciences Stockholm Universities 106 91 Stockholm Sweden Phone: 046-08-162472 /162582 Fax: 046-08-153679 e-mail: zhang@biokemi.su.se From chemistry-request@server.ccl.net Wed May 17 07:01:21 2000 Received: from VMS.HUJI.AC.IL (vms.huji.ac.il [128.139.4.12]) by server.ccl.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA06539 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 07:01:19 -0400 Received: by HUJIVMS via SMTP(132.64.165.10_22916) (HUyMail-V7f1); Wed, 17 May 2000 14:01:11 +0300 Received: by HUJIVMS via SMTP(132.64.165.10_22916) (HUyMail-V7f1); Wed, 17 May 2000 14:01:01 +0300 Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 14:01 +0300 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: chemistry@ccl.net From: Amiram Goldblum Subject: Drugs directed to GPCRs Dear All, In its March 17 issue on drug discovery (Vol. 287 No. 5460), Science published a review on drug discovery that had a diagram (Fig. 3, p. 1962) of biochemical classes of drug TARGETS of current therapies. It demonstrates that out of 483 targets, 45% are receptors, and 7% more are "unknown" targets. - May we safely assume that more than 45% of those targets are GPCRs ? In addition, I am looking for the following information (including refereces if possible): 1. The percentage of drugs on the market that are directed to GPCRs (based on the NUMBER of drugs on the market) 2. The percentage of sales of drugs directed to GPCRs out of the total sales of drugs (it will be helpful to have both % and $$) 3. A few examples of drugs for GPCRs that were recently ( 5 yrs) introduced. I thank you in advance and promise to summarize. Sincerely, Amiram Goldblum ______________________________________ Amiram Goldblum, Ph.D. Prof. of Medicinal Chemistry School of Pharmacy Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel 91120 Tel: 972-2-6758701 FAX: 972-2-6410740 email: amiram@vms.huji.ac.il ______________________________________ From chemistry-request@server.ccl.net Wed May 17 11:48:57 2000 Received: from hecuba.chem.ksu.edu (hecuba.chem.ksu.edu [129.130.170.126]) by server.ccl.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA07938 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 11:48:57 -0400 From: seabra@hecuba.chem.ksu.edu Received: (from seabra@localhost) by hecuba.chem.ksu.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) id KAA15666 for chemistry@ccl.net; Wed, 17 May 2000 10:50:10 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:50:10 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <200005171550.KAA15666@hecuba.chem.ksu.edu> To: chemistry@ccl.net Subject: Fortran Compiler: Summary Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: RUhtx+FN6g6n3Ij8+qs1hw== Hello All, Sorry for the delay in this summary. The original question was: > Forgive me those who are already sick of this subject, but I have one > simple question. I would like to know if the choice of a Fortran compiler is > associated only with the OS or it depends also on the CPU? For example, if I > were to buy a Fortran compiler, is it enought to decide if it will be to Windows > or Linux or do I have to compare compilers for, say, P-III 800 or AMD Athlon > 800MHz, etc? The speed of the processor is also important? (The compiler that is > best for a 600 MHz CPU is still the best for a 800 MHz CPU of the same type?) > Thank you all. 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Yes, you may need to consider the underlying architecture, especially if raw number crunching performance is important. The speed is less of an issue, at least for choosing an efficient compiler. There seems to be better support for the Intel chipset at the moment, but since more machines with AMD chipsets are emerging, I expect support to be more balanced in the future. For Linux, there are freeware compilers which aren't bad at all, and the best commercial Fortran compilers for Linux seem to be the ones from the Portland Group, and from AbSoft. -- Rick Venable =====\ |=| "Eschew Obfuscation" FDA/CBER Biophysics Lab |____/ |=| Bethesda, MD U.S.A. | \ / |=| ( Not an official statement or Rick_Venable@nih.gov | \ / |=| position of the FDA; for that, rvenable@speakeasy.org \/ |=| see http://www.fda.gov ) 22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 > simple question. I would like to know if the choice of > a Fortran compiler is associated only with the OS or it > depends also on the CPU? For example, if I I expect you have been inundated with answers but... In general the choice of compiler is dependant on both the OS and the CPU TYPE. I mean that the compiler for a Mac CPU will differ from that for an intel one or an alpha one. However... all the chips you have listed are IBM-compatible- they are all the same in terms of running programs. In general then- you will need a different compiler for different OS's but if you stick to intel and AMD chips you will need on one compiler for all of the chips. > 800MHz, etc? The speed of the processor is also > important? (The compiler that is> best for a 600 MHz > CPU is still the best for a 800 MHz CPU of the same type?) No, they should all be the same. The difference comes between say a PII and a PIII. The same program will run on both but it is possible to optimised the program to be more effient on each chip- however, the differences are subtile and so the same compile will tend to have switches to specify different 'Target Architectures'. For your information- the compiler needed depends on the instuction set- the 'commands' built into the chip. The intel and AMD chips all have one instruction set ans so all run the same programs. The Mac chips use another instruction set and the alpha yet another. Tom Grey t.grey@ic.ac.uk 33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 A compiler is specific for a processor family, but (with very few exceptions) not for just one processor. So you need to get a compiler for "Intel x86 and compatibles", and of course your OS. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Konrad Hinsen | E-Mail: hinsen@cnrs-orleans.fr Centre de Biophysique Moleculaire (CNRS) | Tel.: +33-2.38.25.55.69 Rue Charles Sadron | Fax: +33-2.38.63.15.17 45071 Orleans Cedex 2 | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/ France | Nederlands/Francais ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 (...) A resposta a tua pergunta eh que compiladores mais modernos apresentarao um desempenho maior uma vez que aproveitarao melhor as propriedades dos novos processadores. The answer to your question is that more modern compilers will have a better performance, once they'll take better advantage of the properties of the new processors. Demetrio Filho dasf@ifi.unicamp.br ******************************************************************************** From chemistry-request@server.ccl.net Wed May 16 19:10:21 2000 Received: from wellington.cnchost.com (wellington.concentric.net [207.155.252.14]) by server.ccl.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA02224 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 19:10:21 -0400 Received: from CC911078A (cc911078-a.abdn1.md.home.com [24.9.150.137]) by wellington.cnchost.com id TAA00547; Tue, 16 May 2000 19:10:04 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.8] Errors-To: Reply-To: From: "Dr. Guillermo A. Morales" To: "CCL" Subject: RE: CombiChem + Synthesizer Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 19:10:21 -0400 Message-ID: <000101bfbf8b$e8d51020$0300a8c0@abdn1.md.home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 I'm sending again this email since it did not go through the first time. Guillermo Morales. -----Original Message----- From: Dr. Guillermo A. Morales [mailto:morales@combichemlab.com] Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2000 6:15 PM To: Jianhui Wu; chemistry@ccl.net Subject: RE: CombiChem + Synthesizer To answer your questions in order: 1)You can look at Tripos' Sybyl and the modules CombiLibMaker and DiverseSolutions among other modules. 2)You might consider Bohdan's MiniBlocks, Charybdis Technologies' reaction blocks, SyntraChem's SyntraPrep, Robbins Scientific FlexChem reactor blocks, and other that might suit your throughput, needs and budget. Note that many reaction blocks come in (6 x 8) 48-well format. Other companies offer blocks in different formats. You can stop by at CombiChem Lab (www.combichemlab.com) to read comprehensive and up-to-date reviews on many items related to combinatorial chemistry such as reaction blocks, workstations, software, etc. I hope this helps. Guillermo Morales ----- Guillermo A. Morales Morales Consulting E-mail: morales@combichemlab.com Website: www.combichemlab.com Member of the Combi-Web Consortium (www.combi-web.com) > -----Original Message----- > From: Computational Chemistry List [mailto:chemistry-request@ccl.net]On > Behalf Of Jianhui Wu > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 4:14 PM > To: chemistry@ccl.net > Subject: CCL:CombiChem + Synthesizer > > > Dear All, > > I am seeking for advice from people which apply computional chemistry in > combinatorial chemistry and have experience in organic synthesizer. > > (1) What software do you use? > We are looking for a software that can generate combinatorial library > according to the binding site of recepter (vdw, electrostatic, > solvation). A designed compound will be useful only when it can be made > in the lab. The construction of each compound should therefore comply > with known organic reaction rules. The library will perhaps be screened > by docking study (virtual screen) to obtain top 100-200 candiates for > organic synthesizer. Do you cluster the library and virtually screen > each sublibrary? What property people usually use to cluster a library? > > (2) Which model of synthesizer do you use? > We are looking for a small organic synthesizer that have 20-40 vessels, > capable of doing Solid phase/solution phase reaction and temperature can > be adjusted. In other words, it should be cheap and still can do the job > although it is small. If you have experience on this kind of parallel > organic synthesizer, please give me some advice (what model, from which > company, is it really doing the job?). > > Thanks a lot, > > Jian Hui Wu > Institute Armand-Frappier > 531 Boul des prairies > Laval, Quebec H7N 4Z3 > > Phone: 1-450-687-5010 ext 4329 > Fax: 1-450-686-5501, 1-450-9780198 > email: JianHui_Wu@IAF.Uquebec.ca > > > > -= This is automatically added to each message by mailing script =- > CHEMISTRY@ccl.net -- To Everybody | > CHEMISTRY-REQUEST@ccl.net -- To Admins > MAILSERV@ccl.net -- HELP CHEMISTRY or HELP SEARCH > CHEMISTRY-SEARCH@ccl.net -- archive search | Gopher: > gopher.ccl.net 70 > Ftp: ftp.ccl.net | WWW: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/ | Jan: > jkl@ccl.net > > > > > > From chemistry-request@server.ccl.net Wed May 17 10:48:30 2000 Received: from helix.nih.gov (helix.nih.gov [128.231.2.3]) by server.ccl.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA07677 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 10:48:30 -0400 Received: (from mn1@localhost) by helix.nih.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA6596273; Wed, 17 May 2000 10:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:48:16 -0400 From: "M. Nicklaus" To: CHEMISTRY@ccl.net cc: "M. Nicklaus" Subject: UCITA Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear list members, This is slightly off-topic since it doesn't concern computational chemistry software exclusively. On the other hand, since it *does* potentially affect buyers and users (at least in the U.S.) of *all* software, including computational chemistry, I'd like to pose the question to this list. (I apologize to those CCL members who are outside the U.S.; however, I believe software users are facing similar issues in other countries as well.) There has been an intense discussion in trade publications for months, and recently also in the general press, about a new law proposal governing software sales and licensing, the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act (UCITA). This draft model law is intended to be passed by the individual state legislatures. I'll not go into the history, background and details of UCITA, all of which can be read about on web sites such as http://www.4cite.org/. The general criticism I've seen voiced against UCITA is that it dramatically shifts the balance of existing contract law in favor of software vendor. Specific provisions that have been deemed particulary worrisome include the right for software vendors to shut down mission critical software remotely without court approval and without incurring liability; to permit software vendors to avoid liability for damage caused by bugs known to the vendor, and undisclosed to the licensee, when the software was bought; to allow software vendors to prohibit public criticism of their product; to bind the purchaser to licensing terms disclosed only after the purchaser pays for the software, and allows the software vendor to change the terms unilaterally by e-mail; and others. Such licensing terms were often part of license agreements in the past, but they turned out to be rarely enforceable in court. Now, the critics say, UCITA would sanction all this by law. I am not a legal expert, and I don't know how much the computational chemistry software field would be affected by it. Since UCITA is about to become law in Maryland, I'd like to ask the CCL members how they see UCITA affecting their future software purchases, and how they plan to handle the situation: just accept it; or try to renegotiate licensing contracts with software vendors; contact their legislators; ignore the licensing terms; simply not buy UCITA-governed software; only use open source and GPL'd programs; or...? I'll summarize the answers for the list. Marc (As always, these are my personal views and not necessarily those of NIH) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Marc C. Nicklaus National Institutes of Health E-mail: mn1@helix.nih.gov Bldg 37, Rm 5B29 Phone: (301) 402-3111 37 Convent Dr, MSC 4255 Fax: (301) 402-2275 BETHESDA, MD 20892-4255 USA http://rex.nci.nih.gov/RESEARCH/basic/medchem/mcnbio.htm Laboratory of Medicinal Chemistry, National Cancer Institute ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From chemistry-request@server.ccl.net Wed May 17 12:00:15 2000 Received: from oak.cc.conncoll.edu (oak.cc.conncoll.edu [136.244.1.6]) by server.ccl.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA08030 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 12:00:11 -0400 Received: from [136.244.188.111] ([136.244.188.111]) by oak.cc.conncoll.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09879 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 11:59:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200005171559.LAA09879@oak.cc.conncoll.edu> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:58:49 -0400 Subject: Re: CCL:Call for papers - Arts and tech symposium From: "marc zimmer" To: chemistry@ccl.net Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit CALL FOR PAPERS, MUSIC COMPOSITIONS, PRESENTATIONS, ART WORKS, THEATER, DANCE, SCIENTIFIC VISUALIZATIONS AND INTERACTIVE INSTALLATIONS THE EIGHTH BIENNIAL SYMPOSIUM ON ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY March 1-3, 2001 THEME: FEEDBACK: Perception and Interaction in the Electronic Arts DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS: NOVEMBER 15, 2000 The Connecticut College Center for Arts and Technology is pleased to announce The Eighth Biennial Symposium on Arts and Technology, March 1-3, 2001. The symposium will consist of paper sessions, panel discussions, art exhibitions, music concerts, animations, mixed media works, video, dance, experimental theater and scientific visualization. In an effort to demystify the artistic process and create a forum for dialogue, we are encouraging all presenters and artists to attend the symposium and speak about their work. The Center encourages research papers and presentations in the specific area of "FEEDBACK: Perception and Interaction in the Electronic Arts" and in the general areas of Interactivity, Virtual Reality, Cognition, Information Technologies, Applications in Video and Film, Music (composition, performance, theory, interactivity, etc.), Experimental Theater, Compositional Process, Innovative Use of Technology in Education, Computer Simulations of Physical Phenomena, Scientific Visualization and Social and Ethical Issues in Arts and Technology. All submissions should be accompanied by a one page abstract for a presentation about the work and each application should be prepared to attend the symposium and make a presentation (paper, poster session, short talk) about their work. Papers and Presentations: A detailed two-page abstract or complete paper including complete technical requirements should be submitted by email or mail. Upon acceptance, finished papers must be submitted electronically following the specific format of the symposium or in camera-ready form by January 15, 2001: Word, 10-12 font size, 8.5 x 11 sheet. Papers may be grouped in panel format. Complete technical requirements must be included. Papers will be published by the Center. Music Compositions: Works for instruments and tape, or tape alone, or interactive compositions are being solicited. Available instruments are: flute (doubling on piccolo), oboe, clarinet (doubling on bass clarinet), bassoon, trumpet, horn, trombone, percussion (two players), guitar, string bass, piano, voice and strings (2,1,1,1). Works should not exceed 15 minutes in length and should be submitted with accompanying score, where appropriate. Tapes for selection purposes should be on cassette, CD's or DAT. Tapes for performance should be CD, ADAT or DAT. Video works should be 3/4 inch Umatic or 1/2 inch VHS. Musicians, dancers and actors may be available for live performance pieces. All submissions should be accompanied by a one page abstract for a presentation at the symposium about the work. Complete technical requirements must be included. Artworks: Works of computer-generated or computer-aided art, or computer-controlled interactive art are encouraged. Animations, video or other works of computer art on tape will be shown in concert settings and less formal settings throughout the Symposium. All submissions should be accompanied by a one page abstract for a presentation at the symposium about the work. Slides, CD-ROM, or video (VHS) and complete descriptions of works must be included. Art works accepted for exhibition must be received by January 15 for inclusion in the pre-symposium gallery showing, February 5 ? March 5. Complete technical requirements must be included. Dance and Theater Studies: Computer-generated or -aided dance and theater is being solicited for live demonstrations or for videotaped presentations. Specially produced dance or theater videos are of particular interest as opposed to concert tapes or other archival uses of video. Also of interest are proposals for workshops, demonstrations of software for dance or theater notation, choreographic analysis, interactive studies and/or multi-media studies of performance in dance & theater. All submissions should be accompanied by a one page abstract for a presentation at the symposium about the work. Videotapes or complete descriptions of demonstration or workshop proposals should be submitted by the general deadline of November 15, 2000. Tapes for selection purposes should be VHS. Complete technical requirements must be included. Panels: Proposals for panels are encouraged. Proposals should include prospective panelists and should be directed to the theme or new issues in collaborative work, as well as ethical issues in arts and technology. Scientific Visualizations: Submissions are solicited for computer animations and virtual realities used to visualize complex scientific processes. Special emphasis will be given to works emphasizing artistic content or educational modules. Submissions should be on CD-ROM or Zip disk format. All submissions should be accompanied by a one page abstract for a presentation at the symposium about the work. Complete technical requirements must be included. GENERAL INFORMATION ON SUBMISSIONS SUBMISSION DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 15, 2000 All music, art, VR, visualization, multi-media installations, workshops, dance and theater submissions should be accompanied by a one page abstract for a presentation about the work. Technical information: Complete technical requirements must be included for all submissions. Please specify platform (MAC, PC-Windows, SGI). Notification: Accepted proposals will be notified by December 22, 2000. Return: Submissions, art works, slides, tapes, scores, videos will only be returned if a self-addressed stamped envelope or packaging is provided. Send submissions to: Center for Arts and Technology Box 5365 Connecticut College 270 Mohegan Avenue New London, CT USA 06320-4196 phone: [860] 439-2001 email: cat@conncoll.edu