RE: cRs

121 From: Beekman, Matthew [mailto:mbeek...@cas.usf.edu] Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 7:20 PM To: Peter Y. Zavalij; rietveld_l@ill.fr Subject: RE: cRs Hello all, A quick question regarding the background subtracted R values: In the .LST file, GSAS gives two sets of values for

Re: cRs

er to an enquiry of your present Chair (a former referee of my thesis), and received back lots of pain. Please, stop. I attach the conference contribution to your attention. - Original Message - >> From: "Eduard E. Levin" >> To: >> Cc: >> Date: 2009-

cRs

ou > should never substract background. > > > Eduard. > > - Original Message - From: "Olga Smirnova" > > Cc: > Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 8:55 AM > Subject: Re: cRs > > >>> As a rule, before doing that I'd switch to xye format to preserve

Re: cRs

Olga Smirnova wrote: Did anyone try to calculate simple mean deviance and compare with popular R factors? OS For "simple mean deviance" do you mean like in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviance_(statistics) Seems we normally call that "chi^2". If that's what you meant, then yes, people do

Re: cRs

ass sample holder, for example, or carbon black. If I'm correct, that the answer would be simple - under this conditions you should never substract background. Eduard. - Original Message - From: "Olga Smirnova" Cc: Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 8:55 AM Subject: Re: cRs

Re: cRs

ch 04, 2009 8:17 AM *To:* Jon Wright; olga.smirn...@hw7.ecs.kyoto-u.ac.jp *Cc:* rietveld_l@ill.fr *Subject:* RE: cRs I'll put my tuppence worth in here as there can be another consideration with high backgrounds. Normally I wouldn't touch the background, but there are times when a

Re: cRs

a] *Sent:* Wednesday, March 04, 2009 8:17 AM *To:* Jon Wright; olga.smirn...@hw7.ecs.kyoto-u.ac.jp *Cc:* rietveld_l@ill.fr *Subject:* RE: cRs I'll put my tuppence worth in here as there can be another consideration with high backgrounds. Normally I wouldn't touch the background, but ther

RE: cRs

2009 8:17 AM To: Jon Wright; olga.smirn...@hw7.ecs.kyoto-u.ac.jp Cc: rietveld_l@ill.fr Subject: RE: cRs I'll put my tuppence worth in here as there can be another consideration with high backgrounds. Normally I wouldn't touch the background, but there are times when a high background

RE: cRs

erful, if slightly meaningless Rwp for the paper! Pam From: Jon Wright [mailto:wri...@esrf.fr] Sent: Wed 04/03/2009 4:00 AM To: olga.smirn...@hw7.ecs.kyoto-u.ac.jp Cc: rietveld_l@ill.fr Subject: Re: cRs Dear Olga, As you've noticed, the Rietveld R-fa

RE: cRs

om: Maxim V. Lobanov [mailto:m_loba...@huntsman-nmg.com] Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 11:35 PM To: rietveld_l@ill.fr Subject: RE: cRs As far as I understand, the major issue is that BG subtraction changes the error statistics (accordingly, weights applied in calculating function to minimize...). It is also somewh

Re: cRs

when you always have to divide by zero background? Let's have time. Considering a part of the profile without peaks one gets 100% cR. I did not give the agreement factor; I would say those cR with all non-excluded points is incorrect, but cR for points with Bragg contribution is almost the same! Do you decrease the Rs by adding the background or do you increase cRs by subtracting the background? OS PS I did not ask my supervisor before sending such a mail.

Re: cRs

agreement factor; I would say those cR with all non-excluded points is incorrect, but cR for points with Bragg contribution is almost the same! Do you decrease the Rs by adding the background or do you increase cRs by subtracting the background? OS PS I did not ask my supervisor before sending such a mail.

Re: cRs

Maxim V. Lobanov wrote: > However, some Rietveld programs do not have good selection of BG functions, > and it is sometimes problematic to correctly fit the BG - so, I think in this > case > careful BG removal would be the only option. Not the only option... You have an option to forget about th

RE: cRs

ow...@csiro.au] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 8:32 AM To: olga.smirn...@hw7.ecs.kyoto-u.ac.jp Cc: rietveld_l@ill.fr Subject: RE: cRs It's German... "verboten" == forbidden. You should never delete the background from a diffraction pattern prior to (Rietveld) analysis. It changes

RE: cRs

South, Victoria AUSTRALIA 3169 Ph: +61 3 9545 8892 Fax: +61 3 9562 8919 (site) Email: matthew.row...@csiro.au -Original Message- From: Olga Smirnova [mailto:olga.smirn...@hw7.ecs.kyoto-u.ac.jp] Sent: Wednesday, 4 March 2009 16:30 To: Brian O'Connor Cc: rietveld_l@ill.fr Subject: Re:

Re: cRs

a [mailto:olga.smirn...@hw7.ecs.kyoto-u.ac.jp] Sent: Wed 4/03/2009 2:14 PM To: rietveld_l@ill.fr Subject: cRs Dear All, How is life with conventional R factors when you always have to divide by zero background? Let's have time. Considering a part of the profile without peaks one gets 10

RE: cRs

Background removal is verbotten! Brian O'Connor From: Olga Smirnova [mailto:olga.smirn...@hw7.ecs.kyoto-u.ac.jp] Sent: Wed 4/03/2009 2:14 PM To: rietveld_l@ill.fr Subject: cRs Dear All, How is life with conventional R factors when you always have to divi

cRs

ut cR for points with Bragg contribution is almost the same! Do you decrease the Rs by adding the background or do you increase cRs by subtracting the background? OS PS I did not ask my supervisor before sending such a mail.