Kevin Cowtan wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Marc SCHILTZ wrote:
  
I agree with everything but would like to add the following: if we 
assume an overall atomic displacement parameter, the drop-off in both 
the anomalous and non-anomalous scattering is the same. Therefore, the 
ratio of anomalous differences over mean intensity (which is what comes 
closest to R_{ano} - in whichever way this is defined) is essentially 
unaffected by atomic displacements and should still go up at high 
resolution, irrespective of the values of the atomic displacement 
parameter !
    

OK, that's new to me. My understanding was that f" does not drop off 
with resolution in the stationary atom case, since the anomalous 
scattering arises from the core atoms. Can you elaborate?

  
Yes, this is correct. And if there are atomic displacements, we would have to multiply f" by an overall Debye-Waller factor (t) to get an "effective" f" which then would drop off with resolution. But the Debye-Waller factor also affects the normal scattering factors in the same way. So the ratio of rms Friedel differences over mean intensities remains essentially unaffected by an overall atomic displacement parameter.


Interpreting the Flack & Shmueli (2007) paper :

D = F^2(+) - F^2(-)  is the Friedel difference of a reflection and A = 0.5 * [F^2(+) + F^2(-)] is its Friedel average

Then  <D^2> = t^4 <D^2>(static) and <A> = t ^2 <A>(static)

So the ratio SQRT(<D^2>) / <A> is independent of t (i.e. the same as for the static case).


Marc


-- 
Marc SCHILTZ      http://lcr.epfl.ch