: Tony Wang
Cc: rietveld_l@ill.fr
Subject: 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 m
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 Practic
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
4 mars 2014 16:03
À : rietveld_l@ill.fr
Objet : 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 previou
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 w
