ional unit-cell compared to the true one
is obtained in the conventional Rietveld method. We propose an additional
criterion to obtain the true lattice parameters accurately.
Hope this might be useful or interesting to you.
Best regards,
Masami Tsubota
Physonit Inc.
TSUBOTA Masami
6-10 M
with us on the Internet.
http://www.cristal.org/powdif/low_fwhm_and_rp.html
Best regards,
Masami
On 2017/11/14 12:22, Larry Finger wrote:
On 11/13/2017 08:54 PM, TSUBOTA Masami wrote:
Dear Rietvelters,
I'd like to introduce our following article.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15766-y
Accur
Dear Johannnes,
Thank you, too.
Am I right that your new criterion (Σ|Δ2θR|(sum or all) = Min) relies on
the previous knowledge of the true, correct lattice parameter (which was
certified for LaB6 in case of the NIST material SRM 660a treated in the
article)?
No. The criteria do not rely on t
Dear Norberto,
Thank you for your comments.
1. The differences in cell parameters on using different ranges may
well derive from the use of a “wrong” model, where “asphericity” of
the form factors (their vectorial dependence) is not considered, nor
anharmonicity of the atomic displ
Dear Antonio and Norberto,
Thank you, both of you.
It uses a single SRM and a single instrument, and a single geometry,
(snip)
if you consider thermal expansion of the detector box for Delta T <~ 1 deg.
I strongly agree with Antonio's plan. If I had budget, I should
performed them.
(FYI, w
ed to admix SRM if you use the new criterion.
I understand that the "anchor" effect depends on a ratio of amount between
a powder sampe and SRM. So, for me, the new criterion would be better.
Sincerely yours,
Masami
Physonit Inc.
TSUBOTA Masami
6-10 Minami-Horikawa, Kaita, Aki
