I tell people it is when your resolution is less than the bond length
that connects the two atoms.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:59 PM, Thomas Edwards <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Jacob,
>
> Ah... this old chestnut!
>
> Current EM people say that they are at atomic resolution because they are
> building atomic models (naive??).
>
> I have been criticised in the past for using the term with say 2.2A
> diffraction data. By co-authors and reviewers alike. When I was young and
> naive.
>
> My (current) definition would be yours - visible with data.
> I think 1.5A is about right for X-ray. Maybe higher res?
>
> I’m sure there are lots of rigorous ways to think. I probably haven’t taken
> that route. However, I think it is a semantic problem that might benefit
> from some disambiguation rather than rigour.
>
> It depends why you are asking the question...
>
> Sorry..!
>
> Ed is: Out and about...
> Sent from iPhone6sPlus.
>
> On 11 Jan 2018, at 19:31, Keller, Jacob <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Crystallographers,
>
>
>
> Has there been a consensus as to what is meant by “atomic resolution?” Seems
> like the term is taken by various practitioners to mean different things.
>
>
>
> A related question: at what resolution are atoms “visible” using only the
> data? I have an empirical feeling that this would be around 1.5 Ang Bragg
> spacings, but on the other hand, one can contour up most maps and see
> individual atom peaks. I would be interested to hear a more rigorous way to
> think about this.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Jacob Keller
>
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Jacob Pearson Keller
>
> Research Scientist / Looger Lab
>
> HHMI Janelia Research Campus
>
> 19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
>
> (571)209-4000 x3159
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
> The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient
> specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of
> this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender.
> If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and
> follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not
> occur in the future.
>
>
|