[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Send comment to list secretary]
[Reply to list (subscribers only)]
Re: CoreCIF revision 2.3 _refine_ls_extinction_method:
- To: Multiple recipients of list <coredmg@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: CoreCIF revision 2.3 _refine_ls_extinction_method:
- From: Howard Flack <Howard.Flack@cryst.unige.ch>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:49:16 +0100 (BST)
_refine_ls_extinction_method ============================ The truth of the matter is that extinction parameters are junk. Junk*10**5 is just the same amount of junk. Also 'tidy junk' is more junky than 'untidy junk' because the neatness tempts you to believe that there is some true order or meaning. There is no decent routine physical experiment that one can do on a crystal that depends on the same things which are critical to extinction. You hence have no way of knowing whether the values of the parameters of an extinction model are reasonable for the crystal under study. My recommendation is to stop any further discussion within CoreDmg on extinction parameters whilst awaiting a significant theoretical or experimental breakthrough. H.
[Send comment to list secretary]
[Reply to list (subscribers only)]
- Prev by Date: Re: CoreCIF revision 2.3 ATOM_TYPE_SCAT
- Next by Date: Re: CoreCIF revision 2.3 / density
- Prev by thread: Re: CoreCIF revision 2.3 / density
- Next by thread: Re: CoreCIF revision 2.3 ATOM_TYPE_SCAT
- Index(es):