Years ago I had a science teacher who taught and railed and scolded that numbers which measure something are useless unless the unit of measurement is attached. I agree.

What then, may I ask, is the unit for "accepted energy" as it appears in our screensavers, in the lower right corner? The MeV? The calorie... the erg... the foot-pound? :-)

Of course I jest. I'm not even sure all of these are units of energy. Nor does it matter for your research; you know what you're doing. But it might, in all sincerity, add a touch of interest and reality for some of the geekier users, myself included.

And it would make an ol' teacher -- rest his soul -- pretty proud.

Thanks for considering it.

joules?

---

I'd say MeV (megaelectronvolts).

I'd say MeV (megaelectronvolts).

That would be my guess too, Klimax. But guesses are about as useless as numbers without units. Does anyone know?

Dr. Baker?

As for the joule, that must surely be far too large a unit for this kind of thing... on the order of silliness as my foot-pound. Then again, I'm no expert, either. Thanks for the responses.

---

perhaps something in the si prefix range ?

I'd say MeV (megaelectronvolts).

That would be my guess too, Klimax. But guesses are about as useless as numbers without units. Does anyone know?

Dr. Baker?

As for the joule, that must surely be far too large a unit for this kind of thing... on the order of silliness as my foot-pound. Then again, I'm no expert, either. Thanks for the responses.

---

I'd say it is kJ/mole (Kilojoules per mole, with mole meaning 6*10^23 Particles, not the animal...), which is the normal units assigned to molecular formation energies. The ranges I see in Rosetta go well with that:

1 mole of carbon produces around 400 kJ when burned to CO2.

Hydrogen bonds and other weak molecular interactions have some percents to per thousands of that. Most of the proteins we calculate have hundreds to thousands of such interactions, so they should also be roughly in a range of some tens to some hundreds of Kilojoules per mol. And this is exactly what I see most of the time.

[Edit because of unsuccessful attempts to get a proper subscript in CO2...)

[quote]I'd say it is kJ/mole (Kilojoules per mole, with mole meaning 6*10^23 Particles, not the animal...)

Hi all,

I was looking for some basic information about Dr. David Baker at:
http://depts.washington.edu/bakerpg/, followed a link to:
http://tools.bakerlab.org/~pprate/,
and there it was in Fig. 2: kcal/mol !!

Thanks to: Department of Physics (M. Schlosshauer) & Department of Biochemistry (D. Baker) at the University of Washington.

Path7.

Interesting they still work with kilocalories. So you need to multiply all values by roughly 4 (4,18605 exactly) to get kilojoules.

---

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." R.M. Nixon

I was looking for some basic information about Dr. David Baker at:
http://depts.washington.edu/bakerpg/, followed a link to:
http://tools.bakerlab.org/~pprate/,
and there it was in Fig. 2: kcal/mol !!

Path7.

Great find, Path7. So it's kcal/mol. Thank you. And sorry about my delayed reply.

Now I wonder if that unit will be deemed worthy of display on the screensaver in the name of good science, and educating the users.

How about it, Dr. Baker?

---