New answers tagged

1

My vote would be for: 3) Molecular and Materials Modeling (mmm.se) Additionally, I like Verktaj's suggestion of molmat.stackexchange.com instead of mmm.stackexchange.com.


-1

We just launched Materials Modeling into Private Beta with that name. You mentioned Operations Research, so I'd link you to this answer for a bit of context on the site definition and launch process; particularly: When a proposal nears the end of its Definition, it undergoes a final review by the Community Team to see if and how it fits with the rest of ...


0

I am not a GROMACS user, but have used it once or twice during my course. As far as I can remember and understand, it is common to use different force field in MD if one simulate something solvated in something, e.g. formaldehyde (OPLSAA force field) in water (SPC,TIP3P, etc.). I guess we can also do that in GROMACS, but I do not really know how to specify ...


3

This is very limited data (only 21 hours since the poll was put up, and only about 40 people in the Facebook group of 1518 members answered), but I thought it was interesting to see that: 29 people describe their research as Electronic Structure (i.e. materials and molecules both) 21 people describe their research as Molecular Modeling 18 people describe ...


3

I definitely think Molecular and Materials Modeling is the better of the two naming options for this SE group. In a Venn diagram with the two circles Molecular Modeling and Materials Modeling there would be some overlap. However the overlap would not be complete as the two circles contain different information including theoretical concepts, applications, ...


3

I'd also go for Molecular and Materials Modeling but with regards to the URL, mmm.stackexchange.com seems rather unclear. So my suggestions are either materials.stackexchange.com or materialsmodeling.stackexchange.com.


4

My vote would be for Molecular and Materials Modeling. As we know, molecules and materials are closely related while differs greatly. In practice, if one wants to modelling them, one have to know knowledge in both Quantum mechanics and Classical mechanics for both electrons and nuclei. I mean, there is nothing different in the underlying mechanism. However,...


1

My vote is for option 3: Molecular and Materials Modeling (mmm.se). Camps


8

I agree with the third option: Molecular and Materials Modeling. As I noticed from the other post, considering the potential contents of this site, I think its name should be broader than "Materials Modeling". One reason is that the proposal includes example questions about modeling that are not necessarily related only to materials. Moreover, there are ...


10

My vote would be for Molecular and Materials Modeling. I think this does the best job of conveying the scope of the site without being too limiting (just materials could suggest a great number of MD and electronic structure questions are off topic) or too broad (matter seems like it could cover things like modeling planetary trajectories or the spreading of ...


1

To the 6 downvoters, have you considered to write a friendly comment to the user explaining that you are downvoting because this is the place to discuss Area51 proposals, not to ask the questions for them? It says: "Kavya Mrudula is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct." Kavya's profile says that they joined Area51 3 days ago, and ...


Top 50 recent answers are included