> >A change since the above page was written is the
> >availability(?) of various mirror/capilliary focussing
> >systems options to increase flux and specialist
> >applications. I have not used a powder diffractometer
> >that has these new features though.
>
> Obtaining patterns of reference materials is the only way to
> compare the various machine categories. Reflection, transmission,
> linear or planar detector, etc. I would be happy to add some
> reference patterns to the above pages : from INEL, or the Huber
> recent 140° detector seen at EPDIC-7, Barcelona or from any
> new system. NIST Al2O3 would be just fine enough. Finding
> all qualities in only one diffractometer is hard if not impossible
> (resolution, fast recording, no fluorescency, monochromatic
> radiation, flux, accuracy, peaks at expected positions which do
> not need software for systematic correction...). Some manufacturers
> seem unhappy with that idea of giving reference patterns. Yes,
> that is curious, you just can't find such essential data...
But what for the following.
First XRD machine gives slightly better resolution but has no
service people in the local area (or country)
Second XRD machine gives slightly less resolution but
has service people available locally (or in the country)
Which would you go for? The availability of service
people locally would be a major plus for the second
XRD. Not much fun having a slightly superior XRD that
cannot be easily repaired if it breaks down or has
problems.
Lachlan.
--
Lachlan M. D. Cranswick
Collaborative Computational Project No 14 (CCP14)
for Single Crystal and Powder Diffraction
Daresbury Laboratory, Warrington, WA4 4AD U.K
Tel: +44-1925-603703 Fax: +44-1925-603124
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ext: 3703 Room C14
http://www.ccp14.ac.uk
