On 28/01/2010 20:20, Ian Tickle wrote:
> On another point you said you wanted an 'operational' definition of
> I(Bragg). I'm not entirely clear what you mean by that. Are you saying
>
I believe he means something that is relevant to real life where
crystals are small, diffraction weak, and background high, i.e. a
quantity that can realistically be extracted from the crap we get on our
images.
> that you want I(Bragg) to be the total background-subtracted integrated
> intensity under the peak at the Bragg position, i.e. what I'm calling
> I(coherent). If so then it can't be the contribution from the mean
> density at the same time! - seems to me that's what everyone means by
> I(Bragg) (including you I thought!) so changing the definition will
> cause total confusion!
>
|