- chemweb - imperial.ac.uk

ANNOUNCE: CFV for sci.chem.organic.synthesis
by Frederic Denonne 14 May '97

14 May '97

I just wanted you to know that CFV for the creation of the above newsgroup has just started. You may vote for or against this group by sending a mail to: voting(a)hut.fi with exactly ONE of the following statements: I vote YES on sci.chem.organic.synthesis I vote NO on sci.chem.organic.synthesis and on another line; Voter name: followed by your name. More info on this group at: <http://heme.gsu.edu/post_docs/koen/wnewsgro.html> Thanks for your support and your time. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Frederic Denonne <http://c267b.chor.ucl.ac.be> Universite Catholique de Louvain (UCL) Belgium <http://www.ucl.ac.be> Organic Synthesis Division (ORSY) <http://www.chor.ucl.ac.be> Voice: + 32 10 47 87 54 Fax: + 32 10 47 41 68 --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Odi Profanum Vulgus et Arceo" chemweb: A list for Chemical Applications of the Internet. Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/chemweb/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo(a)ic.ac.uk the following message; unsubscribe chemweb List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa(a)ic.ac.uk)

1 0

Fwd: The Serials Crisis in the Age of Electronic Access
by Rzepa, Henry 08 May '97

08 May '97

This is doing the rounds (and hence apologies to people who have seen it already). This is a follow up in some ways to my April 11 posting to this forum http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/chemweb/9704/0048.html but more clearly sets the global scene. The message (once you get to it!) is clear. Time for the worm to turn! > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 10:45:00 CST >From: Ken Rouse <KROUSE(a)MACC.WISC.EDU> >To: CHMINF-L(a)LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU >Subject: The Serials Crisis in the Age of Electronic Access > >This *lengthy* editorial also appeared in the SERIALS PRICING >NEWSLETTER, which is also a more normal venue for this sort of >thing. I am submitting it to this list in hopes that some chemists >will read it and respond. Basically, I am arguing that if those >who produce scientific literature, e.g., chemists, do not take the >lead in finding a solution to the problem of horrifically overpriced >commercial journals, the so called "serials crisis" is likely to >have a history as long as the "troubles in Ireland." Of course, >if you can't stand the thought of reading another diatribe on this >issue, please use the delete key. > > > *************************************************** > > >I am surprised and alarmed that there has been very little >mention of the package deals that some commercial publishers, >especially Elsevier and Academic, are currently promoting to >academic libraries for purchasing their print/electronic >journals. Acceptance of these offers, I believe, would be a >watershed event in the history of scientific/technical/medical >(STM) journal pricing. Perhaps the word has simply not gotten >around yet, but from what I have heard, time is running out. Some >major libraries or library consortia (Ohio Link, the CIC, the >University of Michigan, the University of Minnesota) are either >seriously considering these proposals or may have already signed >on the dotted line. In hopes of provoking some discussion, I >would like to describe the offer that Elsevier has presented to >my university and make some comments. I do not have all the >details, but here in essence is the package: > > **THE DEAL** > > >A) The University of Wisconsin-Madison is offered electronic >access to most of the Elsevier group STM journals, about 1200 >titles. A few medical titles belonging to one Elsevier subsidiary >are not included, e.g., EXCERPTA MEDICA. We currently subscribe >to about 600 of the 1200 titles. > >B) The cost will be based upon the number of Elsevier >subscriptions held in 1995-- calculated at the 1997 prices-- plus >an annual surcharge. The contract would run for three years. >First year cost: 1997 list price of 1995 subscriptions plus >7.5%. Second year: cost of first year plus 9.5%. Third year: >cost of second year plus 9.5%. In 1997 we paid Elsevier $844,677 >for the 600 subscriptions. We have not finished compiling the >list of titles held in 1995, so I do not have an exact figure, >but my administration estimates that this formula would result in >a price in excess of one million dollars for the first year of >the deal. If my meager math skills have not misled me, it >appears that Elsevier would collect an additional $449,348 over >the three year period, i.e., assuming first year costs of one >million and then adding in and compounding the 9.5% increases for >the second and third years. Moreover, the initial estimate for >the cost to a library of mounting the database is between $70,000 >to $100,000. > > > **WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE** > > >It seems obvious to me that this is a deal which is designed to >carry Elsevier's enviable profit margins safely into the >electronic era. Or, seen from the perspective of a librarian, it >is a way to perpetuate the "serials crisis" into the indefinite, >electronic future. Admittedly, some universities might find this >very seductive. Imagine! All that access and Elsevier locked >into what might be considered modest increases for this publisher >for two years. > >But just how valuable is this access? We should keep in mind that >we are being asked to pay not only for the more successful titles >that we have been forced to retain despite their mind boggling >prices, but also for all the low-use, high-cost titles that many >of us have canceled years ago-- those titles, in other words, >that we never should have bought into in the first place. In my >mind, the publishers have hit upon a brilliant, "back-to-the- >future" strategy, a return (via electronic vehicle) to the good >old days of sum-sufficient serials budgets when librarians such >as myself eagerly subscribed to every promising journal, knowing >that the money would not come out of our budgets, but from some >vaguely understood but seemingly limitless central library fund. > >Another worrisome aspect of these deals is that they seek to >restrict the use of electronic text for interlibrary loan >purposes. So the future begins to shape up like this: we agree >by contract to support every journal that the publishers serve up >to us, i.e., we forfeit the only effective means we have to make >a point about high journal prices, namely, cancellations. Then, >in the same contract we agree to limitations on the borrowing and >lending of copies of articles between libraries, which--given >ever rising royalty fees--will soon be the only affordable way to >get a copy of an article from a canceled journal. That Elsevier >has their eye fixed on an all-electronic future is suggested by >another aspect of the contract: a 10% discount is offered for >each print subscription that is canceled. > >Now, it is not unthinkable, I suppose, that Elsevier and other >publishers will decide that in the brave new world of electronic >journals they will have to go easier on libraries, if only out >of fear that they might kill the academic golden goose that has >been so kind to them so far. For my part, I would be concerned >that more "normal" price increases might return at the >expiration of the three year contract. What constitutes normalcy >in this regard is reflected in the price histories of some of >Elsevier's more popular chemistry titles. Take TETRAHEDRON >LETTERS, for example, which cost $200 in 1974 but now carries a >price tag of $6845. Even allowing for dollar devaluation, >inflation, increase in size (about 50%), I believe we can agree >that this is an amazing increase in price, particularly in the >light of declining production costs during this period. And, >lest anyone should think that this is an isolated example, in >just one year (1996 to 1997) the companion journal, TETRAHEDRON, >increased in price by $1176, or $118 more than libraries paid for >a 1996 subscription to the ACS's premier organic chemistry >journal, the JOURNAL OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY. > > >The publishers, of course, can hardly be blamed for wanting to >make lots of money. As others have observed before me, the >publishers have only done what successful companies do: >identify a promising new market (growing numbers of >scholars/scientists who must publish to survive), devise a >product to meet the need (new journals), and then charge as much >as the market will bear. I suspect, in fact, that the publishers >themselves have been amazed when they learned that their >customers, mainly academic libraries, seemed willing and able to >bear any burden. For some reason I am reminded of an old >cartoon I once saw (Bill Mauldin?) which illustrated the black >humor of the American military during World War II. It showed a >two German soldiers hunched over their machine gun and peering >out over the battlefield. The one is saying to the other: "It's >amazing, Heinrich. The Americans seem to have an inexhaustible >supply of 2d Lieutenants." > >It may be pointless to begrudge the commercial publishers their >success, but I believe we should all be appalled at the end >result of the high prices: convenient access to the research >published in these titles is increasingly beyond the reach of >many individuals and libraries. In recent years the situation >has become truly grotesque in some cases. The prices of some >journals--a few Gordon and Breach titles come to mind--have risen >so high that, as far as I can tell, not a single academic >library in the U.S. can afford them. Ironically, these journals >survive, sustained no doubt by a handful of companies, for whom >a subscription constitutes a new species of proprietary >information. That much of the information in these journals is >produced by scientists supported by public universities or >funded by government grants, should give us all pause. > > > > **SOLUTIONS: BACK TO THE FUTURE** > > Since I am suggesting that we should reject these deals, it is >only fair that I also say what I think we might do instead. In >the first place, I believe we need to admit that libraries have >failed miserably in the struggle for affordable journals. We >librarians have failed because, except for canceling journals, we >have no effective way to influence the publishing process. We >have merely been empowered to pay the bills. After all the years >of talk and agitation by librarians at all levels (the last eight >years of it collected in the SERIALS PRICING NEWSLETTER) we have >succeeded only in ushering in the era of the $10,000 journal >(SURFACE SCIENCE, BBA) with an annual inflation rate that can >vary between 10 and 80%. > >Secondly, we must dedicate ourselves to doing whatever it takes >to ensure that the next phase of the struggle for affordable >journals is conducted by that group that not only has the most to >lose by continuing our present course, but also the power to >chart a new one: the scholars and scientists who are the >producers and consumers of the literature. As a colleague of mine >has written recently in an article aimed at historians, we will >only begin to pull ourselves out of the sinkhole of run-away >journal prices when the scholarly community decides to "take the >publishing process firmly and irrevocably back into its own >hands." (David Henige "Averting Armageddon: A Modest Proposal," >EDITING HISTORY, v.13, No. 1, spring, 1997). Putting it bluntly >in the context of my own field, unless academic chemists-- >whether through their professional societies or other collective >efforts-- set about the task of establishing affordable new >journals that compete with the TETRAHEDRONS and the SURFACE >SCIENCES, the era of the $10,000 print journal will very soon be >succeeded by the era of the $20,000 electronic journal. > >Persuading academic chemists to assume the burden of founding new >journals in a time when the unavoidable demands of grantsmanship >are already eating away at the time available for research might >seem like an impossible task. It would require, as Henige >suggests in his article, "a serious reorientation of value >systems in academia, which esteem and reward authorship, yet at >the same time in practice denigrate its equally necessary >observe, editorship." He envisions-- as a remedy-- the >recruiting and training of a "cadre of editorially-minded >historians" who would receive meaningful recognition (e.g., >tenure, promotion) for the critically important contribution >they would be making to their field. > >Changing the value system of chemists or other academic >scientists would surely be as long and difficult an undertaking >as it would be for historians. And in the case of chemistry which >has the dubious distinction of having spawned the most costly >journals known to mankind, the stakes are even higher. Since the >Elsevier/Academic deals suggest that we may not have much time, I >believe that libraries must countenance some strong measures >which might jump start the process. Academic scientists must be >given not only powerful career incentives for assuming the >burdens of editorship, but also the fiscal resources they would >require. > > > **GIVE THEM THE MONEY** > > >It has occurred to me (and certainly not to me alone) that a >major reason why faculty have difficulty focusing on the problem >of run-away journal costs is the same reason I could not do so in >the 1970's. The money being spent is not *THEIRS*, but the >library's. Let me hasten to add that my faculty and, I suspect, >most chemistry faculties have been very supportive as the library >has struggled to maintain an adequate collection. They have given >advise about cancellations, taken the publishers to task for >their prices, refused to submit articles to certain publications, >and even turned down offers of editorships. But since the money >was not theirs, they were naturally inclined to keep their >distance. As much as they might "feel our pain," they have been >reluctant to enter into the fray . Since I am now suggesting that >the faculty must lead the charge, obviously this must change. I >believe the libraries must give them the money. > >This may seem a bit extreme at first, but it is actually a very >conservative notion, another "back-to-the-future" strategy, if >you will. After all, for a long time many university science >libraries were managed and funded by academic departments. I >would not burden the departments with the entire library >operation, of course, or even the entire serials budget. The idea >would be to add up the current subscription prices of all >commercially published journals and then move the money back into >the budgets of the appropriate departments. Of course, the >transfer of cash would have to be organized on a national or >ideally on an international scale to be meaningful. And once the >deal was struck, the event should be accorded the appropriate >amount of pomp and symbolism-- a ceremonial banquet, perhaps, >where a librarian of sufficiently high status (the director of >the ARL?) would be captured by the cameras as she/he presents >one of those five-foot-long, symbolic checks with an incredible >number of zeros on it to an appropriately illustrious >representative of the academic science community. > >Once the various departments have the money in their budgets, >several things are likely to happen. First, the faculty will >begin to ponder the implications of continuing the status quo. I >believe they would soon begin to hear a noise akin to the Perot- >style "great sucking noise" which became famous in a recent >presidential election. In this case, however, what they would be >hearing would be the sound of research dollars flowing in the >direction of journal budgets. Secondly, as the noise grew >inexorably louder, they might begin to wonder if a million >dollars (just in the case of Wisconsin) is not just a tad more >money than a single university in a state with relatively modest >economic resources should pay for access to literature from one >STM publisher. > >At that point, the idea of launching some affordable, alternative >journals could come under serious consideration, and a way to >underwrite the costs would be staring them in the face. Think of >the war chest that could be assembled (I can't seem to escape >these militaristic metaphors) if all the larger universities in >the U.S. decided to continue a policy of aggressively canceling >any commercial journal that they could possibly live without and >then pooled a small percentage of the savings! Remember that the >University of Wisconsin-Madison alone would have to pay more than >a half million dollars EXTRA over three years if it were to >accept the Elsevier formula. A trifling contribution of $50,000 >per year from each of the ARL-size universities alone would >amount to $3,000,000 per year, certainly enough to stimulate the >founding of a few journals. > > > > **WOULD THE REAL LEMMINGS PLEASE STAND UP** > >About two years ago Barbara Quint published an article about STM >journal pricing which I found both encouraging and flattering: >"The March of the Lemmings," Information Today, June 1995. >Encouraging, because it depicts the commercial publishers not as >clever strategists bent on using their vast resources and deep >understanding of the academic market to secure their future, but >rather as helpless lemmings whose rapacious pricing policies and >other, more recent revenue enhancing schemes were inherently >suicidal. The immediate impetus for her article had been a >decision by John Wiley and other publishers to begin charging >secondary publishers (abstracting and indexing services) for >subscriptions. The article was flattering because librarians were >identified as one of the important forces which were about to >"link up against the publishers" and speed them on their way to >oblivion: > >"How long before angry librarians give journal editors an earful >of explanations of why the journals on which they work so hard do >not appear on library shelves? How long before authors and >editors meet to discuss the problem at faculty get-togethers with >university research press representatives or at sessions with >research funding agencies looking for ways of squeezing more >value from the research dollar?... And who will help the >research funders and article writers convert their scholarship >into useful, electronic-and-print products for sale and re-use at >reasonable prices under reasonable terms? Who do you think: All >those disgruntled librarians and secondary publishers, that's >who." > >How long indeed? The news that OhioLink and others are about to >accept the long-term access plans currently being proffered by >some of the major STM publishers suggests to me that we are >talking about a very long time. The publishers have shown >themselves to be a bit cannier in the ways of academia than Quint >imagined. This was not quite the linkage she had in mind. In >fact, if librarians and the faculties they serve don't come up >with some better ideas, it may be time for a sequel to her witty >and provocative essay-- with different casting for the part of >the lemmings. > > > > >Ken Rouse, Head, Chemistry Library > University of Wisconsin-Madison > Email: krouse(a)doit.wisc.edu > Phone: 608-2622942 FAX: 608-2629002 > Dr Henry Rzepa, Dept. Chemistry, Imperial College, LONDON SW7 2AY; mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk; Tel (44) 171 594 5774; Fax: (44) 171 594 5804. URL: http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/ chemweb: A list for Chemical Applications of the Internet. Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/chemweb/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo(a)ic.ac.uk the following message; unsubscribe chemweb List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa(a)ic.ac.uk)

1 0

Winners of "Top 5% Chemistry Site"
by Rolf Claessen 05 May '97

05 May '97

The "Top 5% Chemistry Site" award - project started in march 1997 and the first winners have been nominated at: Rolf Claessen's Chemistry Index http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/5243/home_en.htm and The Homepage for Chemists http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~knecht/chempage.htm Yours Rolf Claessen Rolf Claessen's Chemistry Index http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/5243/index.htm chemweb: A list for Chemical Applications of the Internet. Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/chemweb/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo(a)ic.ac.uk the following message; unsubscribe chemweb List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa(a)ic.ac.uk)

1 0

Periodic Table on the WWW - WebElements new edition
by Mark Winter 01 May '97

01 May '97

This is to announce a new interim release (2.0 beta 8) of WebElements - the periodic table on the World-Wide Web (WWW). There are parallel versions - frames and non-frames. Data for each of the first 112 elements is divided into about 30 headings (this many to allow for future expansion). Let me know if you regard this as over-fragmentation. WebElements contains many graphics in a number of styles representing periodic properties. Feedback/corrections welcome. This version contains the new IUPAC names for elements 104-109. I hope you find WebElements useful. The URL is http://www.shef.ac.uk/~chem/web-elements/ Dr Mark J Winter (Deputy Head of Department) Department of Chemistry, The University, Sheffield S3 7HF, England tel: +44 (0)114 222 9304 fax: +44 (0)114 222 9303 e-m: mark.winter(a)sheffield.ac.uk http://www.shef.ac.uk/~chem/staff/mjw/mark-winter.html WebElements is the periodic table on the world-wide web: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~chem/web-elements/ The Sheffield Chemdex is a listing of chemistry sites on the world-wide web: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~chem/chemdex/ chemweb: A list for Chemical Applications of the Internet. Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/chemweb/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo(a)ic.ac.uk the following message; unsubscribe chemweb List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa(a)ic.ac.uk)

1 0

Molecule of the Month
by Paul May 30 Apr '97

30 Apr '97

Hi, To take your mind off all the election fever, how about checking out the new Molecule of the Month, which is Vitamin B12, written by one of my colleagues at Bristol, John Maher. The page contains a huge amount of information about the molecule, its structure, reactions, Nobel prizes associated with it, functional groups - you name it, it's there :-) There is only a Chime-enhanced page available at the moment, but a normal page will be available shortly. MOTM page: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/Depts/Chemistry/MOTM/motm.htm Vitamin B12: http://tiger.chm.bris.ac.uk/VitB12/ Regards, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Paul May, School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, UK tel: +44 (0)117 9287667, fax: +44 (0)117 9251295 email: paul.may(a)bris.ac.uk WWW: http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Chemistry/staff/pwm.htm "It's starting to hit me like a two ton, um, heavy thing" Ronald Reagan 1980 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- chemweb: A list for Chemical Applications of the Internet. Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/chemweb/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo(a)ic.ac.uk the following message; unsubscribe chemweb List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa(a)ic.ac.uk)

1 0

Re: Copyright and Chemistry on the Web
by GARY＠mdli.com 29 Apr '97

29 Apr '97

Hold on, folks! The last time I encountered a copyright debate was in an ACM publications forum -- Communications, I think -- and it went on ad infinitum, ad nauseum, and settled nothing except to emphasize the fact that copyright disputes eventually benefit lawyers. One could recast "Bleak House" in this vein rather than inheritance law in England and have to change very little. Please, let's not clog the airwaves -- ok, email waves -- with this endless topic yet again. chemweb: A list for Chemical Applications of the Internet. Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/chemweb/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo(a)ic.ac.uk the following message; unsubscribe chemweb List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa(a)ic.ac.uk)

1 0

Copyright and Chemistry on the Web
by Rzepa, Henry 29 Apr '97

29 Apr '97

In another forum, there has been a fascinating discussion on copyright, originating from the notice posted on http://clans.cla.co.uk/www/auths.html about what one can or cannot legally do. Out of this, I posted a query of the following type; "A chemist might wish to create a display containing a rotating water molecule. The source "code" (I think its not the correct term to use) is in fact almost pure data, which cannot be copyrighted (ie the datum that the angle between the three atoms in water is 111 degrees is not copyrightable). This is converted "just-in-time" to a nice molecule by the browser, and that action is initated by the user. I think we must be agreed that the very sophisticated effect produced on the screen is entirely and without ambiguity not copyrightable by the original author. Taking it one stage further. Suppose the author decides that the oxygen atom must be displayed differently for whatever scientific reason, and writes a script for doing so. In textual terms this is equivalent to say italicising a word. Is that copyrightable? I think not. Take the next stage. The author choreographs a number of visual effects using scripts, and as a result imparts some conceptual understanding to the chemistry of water that was not there before. The IPR clearly resides with the author. But can the visual effects be copyrighted?" Edward Barrow of the CLA (Copyright Licensing Agency) posted the following reply (representing his view, rather than necessarily that of the CLA) "The screen display of a program which takes structural, chemical or crystallographic data to display representations of a molecule is a computer-generated copyright work, as is any subsequent printout. The copyright belongs first to the operator of the machine. Copyright does not subsist in the underlying factual data.The copyright is infringed by a person who copies the display but not by someone who uses the same program and the same data to produce an identical display; it is thus practically worthless but it does not alter the fact that it subsists. Copyright may subsist in the underlying data (for example a set of results derived from a crystallographic experiment). This copyright would be infringed by copying the data, but not by carrying out the same experiment with the same sample to produce identical data. The position on compilations of data is complicated and the law in the UK is at odds with the rest of the world until at least 1/1/98 by which time the EU's Database Directive is supposed to be implemented." I think this concept that it is possible for a copyright to belong first to the operator of a computer, rather than the person who collected data to enable such a display, to be a fascinating one. Actually, it in reality means that copyright in this sense has no worthwhile meaning! The other interesting point is the distinction between data, and a compilation of data (presumably the minimal amount is two data sets?). In the previous example, an author inserting 3D coordinate data into a web page does not own the copyright to the molecule display on that page, but if he/she had inserted say two molecules into that page, then this dataset of two molecules might indeed be copyrightable by them. At the risk of unleashing a deluge, any comments are welcome! Dr Henry Rzepa, Dept. Chemistry, Imperial College, LONDON SW7 2AY; rzepa(a)ic.ac.uk; Tel (44) 171 594 5774; Fax: (44) 171 594 5804. URL: http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/ chemweb: A list for Chemical Applications of the Internet. Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/chemweb/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo(a)ic.ac.uk the following message; unsubscribe chemweb List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa(a)ic.ac.uk)

2 1

Can you help? (fwd)
by Dr Alan Mills 25 Apr '97

25 Apr '97

... more appropriate for this list, I thought . .. Alan Mills at Venus Internet Ltd, 24 Denmark Street, London WC2H 8NJ, UK email:alan@venus.co.uk web:http://www.venus.co.uk Tel: +44 (0)171 240 5858 Fax: +44 (0)171 240 5859 Providing Web and Internet services and solutions ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:35:37 -0400 From: md2004 <md2004(a)earthlink.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <pdb-l(a)pdb.pdb.bnl.gov> Subject: Can you help? Does anyone know where to find a molecular model of dehydoepiandrosterone, DHEA. I am using rasmol to view. If so please inform me, Mithra chemweb: A list for Chemical Applications of the Internet. Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/chemweb/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo(a)ic.ac.uk the following message; unsubscribe chemweb List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa(a)ic.ac.uk)

1 0

ChemPlace: http://www.chemplace.com/
by Rzepa, Henry 24 Apr '97

24 Apr '97

The site http://www.chemplace.com/ seems a harbinger of things to come. Its at an introductory chemistry level for teaching resources. I expect we will see many more like this in the near future! Dr Henry Rzepa, Dept. Chemistry, Imperial College, LONDON SW7 2AY; rzepa(a)ic.ac.uk; Tel (44) 171 594 5774; Fax: (44) 171 594 5804. URL: http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/ chemweb: A list for Chemical Applications of the Internet. Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/chemweb/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo(a)ic.ac.uk the following message; unsubscribe chemweb List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa(a)ic.ac.uk)

1 0

Re: ACS News
by Bill Town 24 Apr '97

24 Apr '97

I am sorry that you have experienced some difficulty gaining access to ChemWeb.com. However, the problem is most likely to be due to the type of web browser that you are using. Early versions of browsers may unfortunately not be compatible with our site as they do not support the style of pages that we use. However, we do recommend the use of Netscape version 3.0 or the official version of Internet Explorer 3.0. Therefore, if you are using an early version of a browser, I would recommend that you try upgrading your browser to the latest version of Netscape or Explorer. This can be done completely free of charge from the respective web site. It is possible to connect to both the Netscape and the Internet Explorer home page from the ChemWeb.com home page (http://ChemWeb.com/) The buttons at the bottom of this page include a Netscape button and an Internet Explorer button. Click on either of these and you will connect to the respective web site where you will find full instructions on downloading the latest version of the browser that you require. I hope this is of assistance, however, if you have further problems once you have upgraded your browser, or you are already using one of the above browsers, please get back to me and I will look further into the matter. Similarly, if you have any other queries or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me again. Bill Town, Operations Director, ChemWeb, Inc. ---------- From: Vasanta Kalluri To: chemweb Subject: Re: ACS News Date: 24 April 1997 14:58 I tried to access the ACS site and couldn't through the Chemweb. Clicking on members/join did not work. I tried this on 24 april at 9:55am (United States Eastern time) -Vasanta Kalluri chemweb: A list for Chemical Applications of the Internet. Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/chemweb/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo(a)ic.ac.uk the following message; unsubscribe chemweb List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa(a)ic.ac.uk) chemweb: A list for Chemical Applications of the Internet. Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/chemweb/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo(a)ic.ac.uk the following message; unsubscribe chemweb List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa(a)ic.ac.uk)

1 0