>And the question is really : if I do not succeed at home, can I really
>succeed on a big instrument ? I think yes if those numbers mean
>really something. Hence the need to define what they mean.
And the last numbers are, in 'equivalent conventional X-ray at 1.54A
units' of FWHM, which really me
Life is full of ironies! As a mailing list we have been discussing the
merits and demerits of neutron powder diffraction resolution. One of the
important contributions to the discussion was Alan Hewat's agreeing to post
an HRPD dataset on the ILL website. Time-of-flight neutron powder
diffractio
Lubo wrote:
>why do you like playing with numbers so much ? Well, I can tell you some
>more :
>suppose you can subdivide your (our) interval (0-180 degs 2theta) into
>small parts, say 0.01 degs. In other words, you may have 18 channels
>at maximum. If there is an "useful" intensity in a chann
Armel,
why do you like playing with numbers so much ? Well, I can tell you some
more :
suppose you can subdivide your (our) interval (0-180 degs 2theta) into
small parts, say 0.01 degs. In other words, you may have 18 channels
at maximum. If there is an "useful" intensity in a channel (not onl
>I converted the data to 2th, using a popular synchrotron
>wavelength (0.7 A) for everybody's convenience. You can see by yourself
>that the 200 peak has about 0.013 degrees FWHM. Clearly, the FWHM depends
>on the wavelength you choose, so I guess I could have gotten to 0.006 using
>a shorter wa
