No impact ? Longer wavelength more absorption more damage. But between the choices given no problem.
Spread of spots might be better with 1.0 versus 0.9 but that depends on your cell and also how big your detector is. Given your current resolution none of the mentioned issues are deal breakers.
Jürgen
......................
Jürgen Bosch
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute
615 North Wolfe Street, W8708
Baltimore, MD 21205
Phone: +1-410-614-4742
Lab: +1-410-614-4894
Fax: +1-410-955-3655
http://web.mac.com/bosch_lab/
On Feb 15, 2012, at 18:08, "Jacob Keller" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I would say the better practice would be to collect higher
> multiplicity/completeness, which should have a great impact on maps.
> Just watch out for radiation damage though. I think the wavelength
> will have no impact whatsoever.
>
> JPK
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Seungil Han <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> All,
>> I am curious to hear what our CCP4 community thoughts are....
>> I have a marginally diffracting protein crystal (3-3.5 Angstrom resolution)
>> and would like to squeeze in a few tenth of angstrom.
>> Given that I am working on crystal quality improvement, would different
>> wavelengths make any difference in resolution, for example 0.9 vs. 1.0
>> Angstrom at synchrotron?
>> Thanks.
>> Seungil
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>>
>> Seungil Han, Ph.D.
>>
>> Pfizer Inc.
>>
>> Eastern Point Road, MS8118W-228
>>
>> Groton, CT 06340
>>
>> Tel: 860-686-1788, Fax: 860-686-2095
>>
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *******************************************
> Jacob Pearson Keller
> Northwestern University
> Medical Scientist Training Program
> email: [log in to unmask]
> *******************************************
|