> By the way, I wouldn't use "MAD" to describe the mergeing of non-isomorphous > datasets. Strictly speaking, MAD is at least an attempt to measure both > anomalous (f") and dispersive (f') differences, and I don't think it is > appropriate to use the term "MAD" when you know the dispersive signal is > washed out by non-isomorphism. I call such attempts MSAD (mult-SAD), which > I think helps differentiate them from actual MAD data collections where you > at least try not to fry the crystal between measurements that you need to > subtract to get your phasing signal. Unless, of course, you are doing RIP!
Isn't it true that we cannot even agree on what MAD stands for? Is the following right? M = Multiple-wavelength. I think everyone agrees to this, although I believe I've seen the occasional (and sometime non-sensical) variant A = Anomalous (I think everyone agrees, although this term should really be changed to "resonant," as there is no anomaly to it anymore...) D = Diffraction, Dispersion, Destruction, Dissolution...? JPK
