[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
RE: Phase ID draft report
- To: "A Working Group of the IUCr Commission on Crystallographic Nomenclature" <phase-identifiers@iucr.org>
- Subject: RE: Phase ID draft report
- From: "S. C. Abrahams" <sca@mind.net>
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 12:40:04 -0700
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <409A8DC1.80708@mcmaster.ca>
Dear David: Thanks for emphasising the distinction being made between the number of atoms with given Wyckoff site symmetry and the multiplicity of the site itself in your proposal. It would indeed be well worth the effort of making this distinction quite clear. It is always disappointing when committee members with appropriate expertise find themselves too busy (or whatever) to contribute appropriately and I had hoped this working group might have had fewer than usual such members. I would gladly be surprised by many last minute sets of contributions! Sidney -----Original Message----- From: phase-identifiers-bounces@iucr.org [mailto:phase-identifiers-bounces@iucr.org]On Behalf Of David Brown Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 12:11 PM To: A Working Group of the IUCr Commission on Crystallographic Nomenclature Subject: Re: Phase ID draft report Dear Sidney, Thanks for your careful reading of the proposed report on the phase identifier. I will incorporate your comments in the next draft. I only want to comment here on one item to clear up a misunderstanding. > 7. In “6.3 Layer 7. Wyckoff Sequence” > > It would be more appropriate here to use the same Wyckoff site order > as used in ITA, i.e. number, followed by letter. It would also be > helpful if the example contained at least two sites with multiplicity > other than 1, so that it becomes, for example, ‘1a 2c 3f 6g’ or > ‘a2c3f6g’, to avoid possible confusion with the dropped ‘1’ (which I > agree should be dropped). > There is a confusion between the multiplicty of the Wyckoff position and the number of symmetry-independent atoms that occupy the position. In the example given (adi6), a and d presumably have different multiplicities, say 1 and 4, but these are not shown. i is likely to be a general position with, say, multiplicity 8. The multiplicities are not shown as they can be found in ITA since the space group number is known, but the total number of atoms in the cell in this example would be 1x1 + 1x4 + 6x8 = 53. This point clearly needs to be made clearer and I will do this in the next version. David _______________________________________________ phase-identifiers mailing list phase-identifiers@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/phase-identifiers _______________________________________________ phase-identifiers mailing list phase-identifiers@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/phase-identifiers
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- Re: Phase ID draft report (David Brown)
- Prev by Date: Re: Phase ID draft report
- Next by Date: Final draft of Phase-ID report
- Prev by thread: Re: Phase ID draft report
- Next by thread: Phase ID Draft Report
- Index(es):