Hey, it looks like we are really accomplishing something with this
discussion. Only three days ago, neutrons were hoplessly at the bottom of
the resolution league, "one order of magnitude away" from the leader. Now,
neutrons squeezed past conventional x-rays and are in hot pursuit of
synchrotron. Can the remaining gap be bridged? Will neutrons ever be
competitive for structural solution?
To cut a long story short, the answer is that technically it is possible to
build such a machine (a "coldish-neutron" High-RES-TOF diffractometer) with
present-day technology and at present sources, both steady-state and pulsed.
Alan Hewat proposed such a machine long ago for the ILL, and one is being
considered for ISIS 2nd target station. The real question is a different
one: suppose we build it. Would people like Armel use it? Or rather, can
the structural solution community make a strong enough case for it?
I am not and expert, but after listening several times to Carmelo Giacovazzo
I concluded that neutrons have a potential advantage when direct methods are
required and applicable (as opposed to simulated-annealing-type methods).
Any comments?
By the way, for those who value size in itself, this would be a rather long
instrument.
Paolo
