In the $CHTML/twinning.html it tries to explain:
From the table:
# All *P2i3* and related *2i3* space groups:
(h,k,l) already equivalent to (-h,-k,l) so we only need to check:
real axes: (a,b,c) and (b,a,-c)
reciprocal axes: (a*,b*,c*) and (b*,a*,-c*)
/i.e./ reindex (h,k,l) to (k,h,-l).
# Twinning possible with this operator - apparent symmetry for two fold
perfect twin would be P43 (operator k,h,-l)
space group number space group point group possible twinning operator
195 P23 PG23 k,h,-l
196 F23 PG23 k,h,-l
197 I23 PG23 k,h,-l
198 P213 PG23 k,h,-l
199 I213 PG23 k,h,-l
See if it all makes sense..
Eleanor
yanming Zhang wrote:
> Dear 'old' crystallographers,
>
> During one case of structure solution, the data processing programs output incorrect space group-primitive cubic P4132, which later found out that the correct one should be face centerd cubic f23. This problem was caused by perfect twinning.
>
> Now I'd like to invite you to help me understand, and explain in details,
> WHY, IN CASE OF PERFECT TWINNING, THE LAUE GROUP m-3 WILL BE MIS-INDEXED TO m-3m by some data processing programs? I, sort of, understand the reason behind this is caused by the perfect twin operator which will emulate an additional 2-fold axis. But not fully understand the symmetry in details in this case. Your help and teaching are highly appreciated.
>
> Yanming Zhang
>
>
>
>
>
>
|