Quoting Patrick van der Wel <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hello,
>
> I have a spectrum where I observe peak multiplets. Reading previous posts in
> the archive suggests that the 'proper' way of dealing with this (sub-peaks)
> has not been implemented yet. Is this still the case?
just as a philosophical note...
this is only a good solution if there are indeed sub-peaks to be observed,
and this is not always - maybe even hardly ever - the case.
a more general solution would be to have the ability to fit to peak shapes
which could have any form. the exact form of the peak shapes could of course
be determined in various ways, directly from the data (from a reference peak
for example) or from some kind of fitting of an analytical function to the
data. I guess this should be the least freedom-limiting solution
I´ve worked with very narrow linewidth noesy spectra, where multiple
couplings were visible as tri- & quadruplets and worse, but not so
well resolved that a sub peak solution would be workable.
Eiso
>
> One possible approach that was mentioned was to use the 'make intermediate
> peak' option in the right-click menu. However, that seems to be grayed-out
> when I try to do this on a 1D. (A quick test on a 2D suggests it is working
> better there). Perhaps this is not implemented yet in the 1D code?
>
> In any case, I would be glad to hear any suggestions on how to deal with the
> issue of assigning and keeping track of multiplets.
>
> Thanks,
> Patrick
>
|