I agree with Frank. This thread has been fascinating and educational. Thanks
to all. Ron
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013, Douglas Theobald wrote:
On Jun 22, 2013, at 6:18 PM, Frank von Delft
wrote:
A fascinating discussion (I've learnt a lot!); a quick sanity check, though:
In what scenarios woul
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Frank von Delft <
frank.vonde...@sgc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> In what scenarios would these improved estimates make a significant
> difference?
>
Perhaps datasets where a unusually large number of reflections are very
weak, for instance where TNCS is present, or where
On Jun 22, 2013, at 6:18 PM, Frank von Delft
wrote:
> A fascinating discussion (I've learnt a lot!); a quick sanity check, though:
>
> In what scenarios would these improved estimates make a significant
> difference?
Who knows? I always think that improved estimates are always a good thi
A fascinating discussion (I've learnt a lot!); a quick sanity check,
though:
In what scenarios would these improved estimates make a significant
difference?
Or rather: are there any existing programs (as opposed to vapourware)
that would benefit significantly?
Cheers
phx
On 22/06/2013
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Ian Tickle wrote:
> On 22 June 2013 18:04, Douglas Theobald wrote:
>
>> --- but in truth the Poisson model does not account for other physical
>> sources of error that arise from real crystals and real detectors, such as
>> dark noise and read noise (that's why
On 22 June 2013 18:04, Douglas Theobald wrote:
> Ian, I really do think we are almost saying the same thing. Let me try to
> clarify.
>
I agree, but still only "almost"!
> --- but in truth the Poisson model does not account for other physical
> sources of error that arise from real crystals
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Douglas Theobald wrote:
> Feel free to prove me wrong --- can you derive Ispot-Iback, as an estimate
> of Itrue, from anything besides a Gaussian?
>
OK, I'll prove myself wrong. Ispot-Iback can be derived as an estimate of
Itrue, even when Ispot
Ian, I really do think we are almost saying the same thing. Let me try to
clarify.
You say that the Gaussian model is not the "correct" data model, and that
the Poisson is correct. I more-or-less agree. If I were being pedantic
(me?) I would say that the Poisson is *more* physically realistic t
On 21 June 2013 19:45, Douglas Theobald wrote:
>
> The current way of doing things is summarized by Ed's equation:
> Ispot-Iback=Iobs. Here Ispot is the # of counts in the spot (the area
> encompassing the predicted reflection), and Iback is # of counts in the
> background (usu. some area around
