On Wednesday, 1 July 2020 18:50:57 PDT Jose Brandao-Neto wrote:
> Hi Ian, good to hear! Hi everyone, thanks for the etymological - and
> etiological - discussion. I'm good whatever the choice.
>
> John, I beg to differ with the absolute statement that xfels offer damage
> free hkls - back in 2016 yet another great experimental work, by Inoue et al
> (https://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1492), showed global loss of diffraction
> in a protein crystal analog as soon as 10 fs from exposure start (later
> estimated in Mx experiments by I. Schlichting's team).
That's the "destroy" part of "diffract and destroy".
Since an XFEL pulse can be shorter than 10 fs,
that observation does not contradict the idea that the measured
diffraction occurs faster than the damage.
Ethan
> Cheers,
> José
--
Ethan A Merritt
Biomolecular Structure Center, K-428 Health Sciences Bldg
MS 357742, University of Washington, Seattle 98195-7742
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
