| ▲ | masfuerte 8 hours ago | |
I can read some of it. I used * for two words I couldn't read. And I'm not sure about the word "containing". > Evidence for 2-chain (or 1-chain helix)? > 49c - general trend is as for single containing helix > (which differs from single * chain in integral no. residues/* > only in contribn of high order J'n to the latter) The crossed out bit says: > and this is indistinguishable from double helix with residues on > each having same ζ-value, since 2nd chain has opposite signs in > ξ & η terms (eq 1 - 2), and eqn 2 contains only [...] She was certainly thinking about double helixes. | ||
| ▲ | penteract 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | |
I read pretty much the same thing. First * is 'discontinuous', second might be 'turn'. I'm tempted to read 'continuous' where you have 'containing'. | ||