Sorry yes you're quite right, I hadn't noticed the ambiguity of
'account for': 'take into account' would have been better.
-- Ian
On 6 August 2012 14:39, Edward A. Berry <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Oh - you meant how one could take nonrandom distrubution
> into account in the analysis-
> funny how I always understand what someone meant after
> i push send on an inappropriate reply
>
>
> Edward A. Berry wrote:
>>
>> Ian Tickle wrote:
>>
>>> below the noise threshold. This does make the tacit assumption that
>>> the unmeasured reflections are distributed randomly in reciprocal
>>> space, which is clearly not entirely true, but it's hard to see how
>>> one could account for the non-random distribution. Again, in any case
>>>
>> What about collecting in the corners of a square detector?
>> Due to the crystal diffracting better than expected or
>> the need to sacrifice resolution for spot separation?
>>
>> eab
>>
>
|