Summed partials count as one. SCALA doesn't adjust for <360deg, maybe it should as they are not independent. What would you call them?
I prefer "multiplicity" since Elspeth Garman commented "if they are redundant why bother measuring them"
Phil
Sent from my iPhone
On 15 Jul 2011, at 18:24, James Holton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> At the risk of asking a question to which I should already know the answer:
>
> do partials "count" as "redundancy"?
>
> That is, in SCALA, is the number of "observations" the number of recorded spots? Or is it the number of recorded spots after adding partials? If it is the latter, what happens if you collect more than 360 degrees of data? Does the second pass through a given unmerged hkl index count as "more partials" or is it now somehow upgraded to an "independent" observation?
>
> Then again, in Eastern English the word "redundancy" has a negative connotation, and the output of SCALA actually uses the word "multiplicity". I wonder if that makes unmerged partials "redundant"?
>
> -James Holton
> MAD Scientist
>
> On 7/15/2011 8:09 AM, Ed Pozharski wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 09:26 +0100, Phil Evans wrote:
>>> Ed. You could count them from the unmerged output as you say, or I
>>> could make you a special version of SCALA or Aimless maybe next week
>>>
>> Phil,
>>
>> that would be fantastic! Hope there is broader interest in such option
>> (beyond Robbie and myself). I'll try unmerged output in the meantime.
>>
>> Ed.
>>
>
|