RE: Figure 1.13 of Book Powder Diffraction Theory and Practice

Dear Prof. Dinnerbier, Thanks for your message, which helps to confirm my understanding. Also thanks for the opinions given from other friends. Tony -Original Message- From: rietveld_l-ow...@ill.fr [mailto:rietveld_l-ow...@ill.fr] On Behalf Of Robert Dinnebier Sent: 2014年3月15日 3:54 To:

Re: Figure 1.13 of Book Powder Diffraction Theory and Practice

Dear Tony, thanks for pointing this out. You are absolutely right. This mistake slipped our proof reading. All the best, Robert. Wang : Dear Rietvelders, I might not be the first to ask this question, but I found the Figure 1.13 of book "Powder Diffraction - Theory and Practice" is pro

Re: Figure 1.13 of Book Powder Diffraction Theory and Practice

Hi Tony, I agree that Figure 1.13 has the radians conversion missing. I generated the same plot in Excel (both with and without the Pi/180 factor) to confirm your observation. As you pointed out correctly, in calculations, delta theta should be in radians. It's a common mistake that I observe with

RE: Figure 1.13 of Book Powder Diffraction Theory and Practice

Dear Tony, I think that you are right. d_theta in eq. 40 should be in radians and not in degrees. It’s nice that people are reading books carefully. Radovan [iycr_square_web] Radovan Cerny Laboratoire de Cristallographie Université de Genève 24, quai Ernest-Ansermet CH

Figure 1.13 of Book Powder Diffraction Theory and Practice

Dear Rietvelders, I might not be the first to ask this question, but I found the Figure 1.13 of book "Powder Diffraction - Theory and Practice" is problematic. The equation 40 on the previous page is correct. But the authors seems wrongly treated "Δθ" as angle not radian when plot Figure 1.13,