SCALA doesn't do anything with the mosaicity, it just reports what was passed from the integration program.
On 25 May 2012, at 17:12, Ed Pozharski wrote:
> I should do more digging, but I hope maybe there is a simple explanation
> and someone has seen this before. On some datasets (collected at SSRL)
> I get SCALA reporting average mosaicity of 0.0. This probably happens
> at the integration stage, and for this whole set of datasets *always*
> happens when I use the autoxds scripts. When I go with mosflm/scala, it
> still happens for some, but not all datasets. I can process those that
> fail mosflm using denzo/scalepack, but it takes a bit of tinkering with
> parameters (diffraction is admittedly messy).
>
> Interestingly, it seems that at least in some cases all the other SCALA
> statistics are perfectly fine. I haven't checked yet how these will
> behave in refinement, but I suspect it will look OK too.
>
> I have found this by googling
>
> [log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]
>
> but it's from 2005 and I wonder if things changed since. Andrew
> mentions the multiple close lattices as one of the possible reasons, and
> it is indeed fairly common for these datasets.
>
> I cannot find anything in SCALA manual about mosaicity refinement, so I
> assume that scala (unlike scalepack) does not do that. So if I am to
> overcome the zero mosaicity issue by fixing it at mosflm stage, how
> important it is to get it close to the actual value? Or is it enough to
> just keep it sufficiently high to prevent rejections of legit spots?
> And, if I may ask one last question, is there a way to fix mosaicity in
> imosflm gui (I can *fix* it, but doesn't seem to be possible to choose a
> specific value).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed.
>
> --
> After much deep and profound brain things inside my head,
> I have decided to thank you for bringing peace to our home.
> Julian, King of Lemurs
|