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
>
|