> > It is also true that no development has been done for anisotropy. Not yet! > > Well, if all previous works about trying to take account of size/strain > anisotropy in the Rietveld method are nothing yet, this allows to > close the discussion. Let us wait for really serious developments to > come.
You not correctly understood me (I would like to believe that not ill-disposed). I said that no development for size anisotropy has been done including "physical" size distributions (like lognormal, etc.) as were done for the isotropic case. For example: Langford, Louer & Scardi, JAC (2000) 33, 964-974 and Popa & Balzar JAC (2002) 35, 338-346. Concerning previous (phenomenological) works trying to take account of strain/size anisotropy in the Rietveld method, I have myself a contribution: "The (hkl) dependence of diffraction-line broadening caused by strain and size for all Laue groups in Rietveld refinement, N. C. Popa, J. Appl. Cryst. (1998) 31, 176-180." Could I be so stupid to say that such kind of works, including mine, are nothing? Best wishes, Nicolae Popa
