RE: Figure 1.13 of Book Powder Diffraction Theory and Practice

: 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

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