*> As a matter of course we didn't took part in the discussi**on... * (Schenk) *> ...**people pretending now to speak in place **of Loopstra should stop to do so *(Le Bail) What a contrast of style and substance. Late believers are true believers, and Passion evicts Doubt.
Seeking sanity, I refer back to Miguel and the meaning of truth and knowledge.: > *Scientists cannot ask anyone for the absolute truth* (A consideration valid for one but also for two) By absolute <https://www.google.fr/search?q=absolute> truth I meant universal or divine truth. We can certainly ask everyone for the complete truth as they perceive it - opinion, the first kind of knowledge according to the Dutch philosopher <http://ethicadb.org/241>, and "the only source of falsity" :-) Scientists try to approach the second kind of knowledge (reason). The third kind is divine truth, and even Armel cannot ask for that. On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 at 17:44, Le Bail Armel <le-bail.ar...@orange.fr> wrote: > Dear Rietvelders, > > > > The last sentence of the van Laar & Schenk paper is : > > "It seems to us justified to replace the name ‘Rietveld method’ > in the future by the working title of the past: ‘profile method,’ > or to honour the inventor by using ‘Loopstra method’." > > So, shame on Rietveld for having stolen Loopstra idea and mathematics > from van Laar. Shame also for having modified a paper from Henk Schenk > telling early the "true." > > Thanks to Bob van Laar for being so obviously modest and not > considering that his mathematics matter in the method. > > Hope that among the 700 readers there are a few like me finding > that paper completely incoherent and not convincing at all. > > The fact is that Hugo Rietveld was convinced that he was the > main conceiver of the method and it is absolutely not impossible > that Loopstra was only one of the numerous guys who had the idea > tor fit a complete powder pattern instead of extracted intensities. > Rietveld himself could be one of such guys. He decided to thank > > Loopstra and van Laar "for their suggestions and helpful criticisms". > > And this supposes that Loopsta and van Laar have very probably > > read the paper before submission and seen clearly that Rietveld > > was the only author of that now most cited 1969 paper... > > One of the main surprising sentence in the paper is : > "If the community had awarded this (Loopstra & Rietveld, 1969) > paper the recognition it deserved, the described profile refinement > method would probably not be named after Rietveld alone. From the > point of view of historical correctness this would have been much > closer to the truth." > > Indeed, in that 1969 paper one can find : > "In neutron powder diffraction, it is customary to use as > least-squares data the integrated values of the diffraction peaks, > even when these consist of more than one Bragg reflexion. The loss > of information inherent in this technique can, however, be eliminated > by using the complete observed powder pattern in a direct manner > (Rietveld, 1967). This method determines the esti-mates of the > structure parameters by finding a least-squares fit between the > observed and calculated profile intensities." > > So, Loopstra cosigns a paper in 1969 with Rietveld in which he > recognizes using the Rietveld method as described in the Rietveld > 1967 paper ! > > Later Loopstra published many papers referencing the Rietveld > 1969 paper. > > My conclusion is that people pretending now to speak in place > of Loopstra should stop to do so. > > Best, > > Armel Le Bail > > > > Message du 21/08/18 16:01 > > De : h.sch...@uva.nl > > A : Rietveld_l@ill.fr > > Copie à : > > Objet : [SUSPECTED SPAM] Rietveld > > > >We were worried that our article was not reaching the powder > crystallographers as it was published, although Open Access, in Acta Cryst > A. Jim Kaduk advised me to use this excellent list-server, so I became > member and posted our message. Now I�m happy to mention that since that day > Acta A counted almost 700 downloads for the paper, so we clearly reached > our goal. > > > > I was also pleased to follow the discussion, very lively and > interesting, and thank all contributors. The discussion was led day and > night by our excellent chair/moderator, Alan Hewat. > > Alan, you did a fantastic job, summarising, adding information and > making essential links. Thank you very very much! > > > > As a matter of course we didn�t took part in the discussion, but now I > like to make one comment on the question �why now�. This is a quite long > story and carries a lot of non-scientific information. So it couldn�t be > part of our paper, but may be once it will be written down and published in > the IUCr Newsletter. > > > > Henk Schenk > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Please do NOT attach files to the whole list <alan.he...@neutronoptics.com > > > Send commands to <lists...@ill.fr> eg: HELP as the subject with no body > text > The Rietveld_L list archive is on > http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Please do NOT attach files to the whole list <alan.he...@neutronoptics.com > > > Send commands to <lists...@ill.fr> eg: HELP as the subject with no body > text > The Rietveld_L list archive is on > http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > -- ______________________________________________ * Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOptics, Grenoble, FRANCE * <alan.he...@neutronoptics.com> +33.476.98.41.68 http://www.NeutronOptics.com/hewat ______________________________________________
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Please do NOT attach files to the whole list <alan.he...@neutronoptics.com> Send commands to <lists...@ill.fr> eg: HELP as the subject with no body text The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
