Discussion List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Resolution limits

  • To: Multiple recipients of list <coredmg@iucr.org>
  • Subject: Re: Resolution limits
  • From: Sydney R Hall <syd@crystal.uwa.edu.au>
  • Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 01:08:52 GMT
David: My late response to your comcifs mail of Oct 15 is indicative of how
far behind I am with my non-urgent correspondence... and for this I apologise.

Phillip Fanwick's views would certainly be typical of structural scientists
not involved in macromolecular work. "Theta max" clearly means a lot more 
in this field than "d min", as indeed does the max sin(theta)/lambda (s),
which is also radiation independent. It would be just as informative to
cite max s as min d for these purposes.... and quite frankly I believe that
setting the expected data limit in the Acta C Notes for Authors at an s of
0.6 is just as intuitive as setting it at a d min of 0.83.

Just as with the adp's its likely that the micro and macro crystallographers 
will continue to use the measures of most convenience until the distinctions
between the techniques become blurred and disappear. In the meantime the 
CIF dictionaries will need to provide the methods that enable these 
conversions to be done effortlessly and perhaps automatically.

Cheers, Syd.

[Send comment to list secretary]
[Reply to list (subscribers only)]