[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Send comment to list secretary]
[Reply to list (subscribers only)]
Re: Absolute structure
- To: Brian McMahon <bm@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: Absolute structure
- From: flack@mime.unige.ch (Howard Flack)
- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 17:33:37 +0100 (MET)
- In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.971212131214.28697A-100000@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
Dear Brian, >D> Howard and I seem to have quite different ideas about what is >D> expected in the _reflns_number_* fields. This just proves that they are ill-defined. >D> >D> I like Howard's definitions of _chemical_absolute_configuration >D> and _chemical_optical_rotation, and we should also consider renaming the >D> items _refine_ls_abs_structure_* to _refine_ls_absolute_configuration_* >D> with Howard's enhanced definition. I disagree entirely. The least-squares refined Flack x parameter applies to absolute structure which is a much wider concept than absolute configuration. The current name is fine and should be left as it is. Absolute structure occurs in all non-centrosymmetric structures, absolute configuration in only a subset. To interpret absolute configuration needs the absolute structure parameter value (or something equivalent) and other conditions defined in _chemical_absolute_configuration.
[Send comment to list secretary]
[Reply to list (subscribers only)]
- References:
- Re: Absolute structure (I. David Brown)
- Prev by Date: Re: Absolute structure
- Next by Date: Re: Resolution as an indicator of data completeness
- Prev by thread: Re: Absolute structure
- Next by thread: Re: Absolute structure
- Index(es):