From: "Graeme Day" 
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:30:02 -0500
To: chemrg@showme.missouri.edu
Subject: Group 1 evaluation of Group 4
Mime-Version: 1.0

(A) Evaluating Unit: Group 1 - The Focking Computational Chemists

(B) Evaluated Unit: Group 4 - The Hamiltonophiles

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Context Definition and Selection: 13 Points (0-15)
Interesting topic.

(2) Problem Definition and Selection: 14 Points (0-15)
Good definition of the problem being studied and isolation of what you
want to
study in the proposed project.

(3) Choice of Methodology:  15 Points (0-15)
You've done a lot of thinking about your methods used. The explanation and
knowledge is impressive.

(4) Scope of Project: 13 Points (0-15)
Well defined and thought out.

(5) Interpretation: 12 Points (0-15)
Good proposed interpretation of energies, but it couldn't hurt to look at
geometries and charges on structures (especially transition states) to
gain
more insight into the reactions.

(6) Facilities & Feasibility: 5 Points (0-5)

(7) Timeline:  Points 3 (0-5)
You're being very optimistic, especially when using a shared computer with
a
queue! If you're expecting (and asking for) 1-2 days to optimize a TS,
then
expect to wait a few days on the queue before your job even starts.

(8) Pros & Cons: The Verdict. 13 Points (0-15)
Interesting and I would be interested to see your results. I won't expect
them
in the one month proposed, though. Especially if only one of you is really
working on the project.

Total: 88

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:57:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: jianzheng shi 
To: chemrg@showme.missouri.edu
Subject: peer evaluation of group 4 by group 2 
MIME-Version: 1.0


(A) Unit Number and Unit Name of Evaluating Unit
Group 2 nitrosamine

(B) Unit Number and Unit Name of Evaluated Unit
Group 4: The Hamiltonophiles (Leonid & Lixin)

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories

(1) Context Definition and Selection: 13 Points 

(2) Problem Definition and Selection: 12 Points 

(3) Choice of Methodology: 14 Points 

(4) Scope of Project: 12 Points 

(5) Interpretation: 11 Points 

(6) Facilities & Feasibility: 4 Points

(7) Timeline: 3 Points 

(8) Pros & Cons: The Verdict. 14 Points

Total 83

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 21:04:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Bruce Flint 
X-Sender: c709549@sp2n17.missouri.edu
To: "Dr. Glaser" 
Subject: Peer Evaluation of group 4 by group 3
MIME-Version: 1.0

3 hueckelberries
4 hamiltonophiles

1. context 13
	interesting problem

2. Problem def. and selection 12
	We are a little concerned about how the problem was isolated.
Won't the absense of the benzene ring affect to activation energy, etc.

3. Choice of Meth. 14
	Good, you seem to know what your doing 

4. Scope 13
	good

5. Interpretation 8
	What do you expect to find?  How would it relate to the 'big
picture'?  There doesn't appear to be a section on this

6.  Fac. and Feas 5

7. Timeline 5

8. Pros and Cons 13
	We found the discussion interesting, especially the thiol
attacking the thiol.

Total 83
	
Bruce Flint
237 Chemistry Bldg.
University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, MO  65211

*************************************************
I like my Y chromosome!
************************************************* 

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:01:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Emky: Chaser of Dragons" 
X-Sender: c651091@sp2n17.missouri.edu
To: chemrg@showme.missouri.edu
Subject: Peer evaluation of group 4 by group 5
MIME-Version: 1.0




Section 1: 14/15
   Interesting application of computational chem to a simple model of a
system of biological importance.

Section 2: 13/15
   
Section 3: 12.5/15
   Good use of single point calculations with higher basis sets to save
computer time etc...

Section 4: 13/15
   
Section 5: 12.5/15
   How exactly will you obtain the electron density, and how will you
manipulate it?

Section 6: 4/5

Section 7: 4/5

Section 8: 13/15
   

Total: 86/100