Sounds like a reasonable idea. I suspect we'd leave the current data
model referencing to represent the real ('in retrospect') values and add
an "other reference ppm" value (for the original spectrometer value or
whatever the user decides it to be). (And the latter might well end up as
"application-specific data".)
Wayne
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Vicky Higman wrote:
> > One feature I miss from Sparky is that one was able to put in a
> > separate 'spectrum shift', which basically reflects the required chemical
> > shift adjustment. I have previously been advised that one should do this by
> > editing the reference frequency in Analysis. While this might be equivalent
> > (or even 'proper') in principle, I find that in practice I would prefer to
> > have that value (by default) be the value set in the data file / used on the
> > spectrometer during acquisition, and have a separate value for the 'in
> > retrospect' correction required.
> >
>
> > My feeling is that that would have several benefits, but perhaps others might
> > disagree? I wonder if anyone else missing this (Sparky) feature or has a way
> > around it?
> >
>
> I agree that this would be useful - especially for solid-state users.
> My way around this is rather old fashioned (and may help convince the
> CCPN team to incorporate the feature): I write the original ('proper')
> spectrum shift in my lab book so that I can re-enter it, if I want to go
> back to it at some point :)!
>
> Vicky
>
>
> --
> ****************************************************
> Dr. Victoria A. Higman
> Leibniz-Institut fuer Molekulare Pharmakologie (FMP)
> NMR-Supported Structural Biology
> Robert-Roessle-Str. 10
> 13125 Berlin
> Germany
> Phone: +49-30-94793 223
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> ****************************************************
>
