Just one other things that comes to my mind.
A great way to check for any bogus assignments that may be the
underlying cause of this is the quality reports menu. (I think that it
is Resonances - quality reports, but not sure). Anyways, if you go to
the resonances or peaks tab in that menu and check the box for only
alerts you get a great menu for cleaning up any wrong assignments if
they exist. I find that this does take a bit of time if there are
errors, but it is well worth it.
David
On 4/24/2012 8:39 AM, Wayne Boucher wrote:
> Tim also sends the following:
>
> This error message is a legitimate one to make sure that you don't get
> multiple resonance records for exactly the same thing. It occurs when
> you try to assign atoms to something that is already assigned
> elsewhere (beyond the assignment tolerance). It is not something you
> want to simply bypass.
>
> If the resonance has accidentally been placed elsewhere, as David
> suggested, you can see where by looking at the resonance info, e.g.
> via the Atom Browser click the atom and [Show Resonances] then in the
> resonance table [Info]. Any single bogus assignment can be removed
> from the peak before deleting the resonance (or editing its shift
> which is allowed if not assigned to peaks).
>
> If there is a genuinely large uncertainly in the precision of shifts
> (i.e. broad linewidths) then the assignment tolerance (set at
> Experiment:Speactra - Tolerances) could be made wider. Also the
> "Double Tolerances" option in the Assignment Panel may help. The point
> here is that the assignment is made to the existing resonance/atoms,
> even if they are separated a bit from the peak position; no
> new/duplicate resonance is assigned.
>
> If the shift differences are not minor and the peaks are in genuinely
> different positions, such that you wouldn't want to average their
> locations to get the underlying shift, then the solution is to use a
> separate shift list for the experiment that has moved. The one
> assignment can then have two different shifts, depending on
> experimental conditions.
>
|