> gamma, or whatever we assume it to be. On the former, it is easy to see if
> observed profiles can't be successfully fit ("super-Lorentzian" peak
shapes,
> for instance), which means that the TCH peak shape cannot be used.
However,
> an assumption that physically broadened profiles (size and strain) are
also
> Voigt function is more difficult to prove; if not and one uses the
equations
> described above, a systematic error will be introduced. On the latter, aGood answer Davor, but why you are avoiding to say that if the size profile (15a, 21, 22) from JAC(2002)35, 338-346 (used in 3.1 of RR paper) would be implemented in the Rietveld codes these codes would become much "powerful" and with a wider application in the size distribution determination? Nicolae
