You have some horrible ice rings - some data processing software may be able to cut them out.. how are you processing it? Eleanor
On 8 August 2017 at 15:43, Christian Roth <christianroth...@gmail.com> wrote: > Your plots look strangely different to the old Scala output you posted > before, but never mind. > > Paul is right that a negative intensity is not desired and your crystal > has some issues with ice. > > That one icering around 2.26 must be massive taken into account how > haywire your curve goes there. > > Have you had a look at the images? There should be something visible in > that area. > > Christian > > Am 08.08.2017 um 15:17 schrieb Paul Emsley: > > On 08/08/2017 15:07, Satvik Kumar wrote: > > Dear Prof. Powell and Prof. Dodson, > > Thanks for your reply and advise. > > As per your suggestion, I have re-scaled the intensities using Aimless at > 1.861 A. > > I observe that the I/sigI has dropped to -0.8 > > > That's not good. > > > and the behaviour of CC_1/2 is still anomalous. > > That made me laugh out loud. Perhaps not the best choice of adjective. > > > Also, when I inspect the Wilson plot (Fig. 1), I observe that the curve > does not fall smoothly with respect to the reference curve (blue). Even > with respect to one more Wilson plot from CCP4 website (Fig. 2), the curve > from my aimless output is different and discontinuous. > > > Icy! > > /me wonders if CCP4 are distributing auspex yet... > > > The second moment of I is constant only up to a resolution of 2.4 Å at a > value of 3 (Fig. 3). I was not able to get some other plot to compare > against mine. > > Please tell me if I can still go ahead and refine at 1.861 A. > > > No you can't. > > Maybe with some chopping you can rescue some reflections beyond 2.1. > > Paul > > >
