Am 20:59, schrieb James Holton:
...
The loss of the 1/r^2 term arises because diffraction from a crystal is
compressed into very sharp peaks. That is, as the crystal gets larger,
the interference fringes (spots) get smaller, but the total number of
scattered photons must remain constant. The
Actually, people forget the 1/r term because it is gone by the end of
Chapter 6 of Woolfson.
Yes, it is true that, for the single reference electron the scattered
intensity falls off with the inverse square law of distance (r) and,
hence, the amplitude falls off with 1/r. However, the units
On Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:12:18 pm Lijun Liu wrote:
I think I need make it clear. Not their changes (f' and f) but their
contribution to reflection intensities changes.
f' and f are not changes.
They are the real and imaginary components of anomalous scattering.
They are wavelength
On 10-10-14 01:34 PM, Ethan Merritt wrote:
...
The contribution from normal scattering, f0, is strong at low resolution
but becomes weaker as the scattering angle increases.
The contribution from anomalous scattering, f' + f", is constant at
all scattering angles.
...
My
On Thursday, October 14, 2010 01:18:04 pm Bart Hazes wrote:
On 10-10-14 01:34 PM, Ethan Merritt wrote:
...
The contribution from normal scattering, f0, is strong at low resolution
but becomes weaker as the scattering angle increases.
The contribution from anomalous scattering, f'
I have always found this angle independence difficult. Why, if the anomalous
scattering is truly angle-independent, don't we just put the detector at 90 or
180deg and solve the HA substructure by Patterson or direct methods using the
pure anomalous scattering intensities? Or why don't we see
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 04:28:26PM -0500, Jacob Keller wrote:
I have always found this angle independence difficult. Why, if the anomalous
scattering is truly angle-independent, don't we just put the detector at 90
or 180deg and solve the HA substructure by Patterson or direct methods using
On Thursday, October 14, 2010 02:28:26 pm Jacob Keller wrote:
I have always found this angle independence difficult. Why, if the anomalous
scattering is truly angle-independent, don't we just put the detector at 90
or 180deg and solve the HA substructure by Patterson or direct methods using
On Oct 14, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Jacob Keller wrote:
I have always found this angle independence difficult. Why, if the anomalous
scattering is truly angle-independent, don't we just put the detector at 90
or 180deg and solve the HA substructure by Patterson or direct methods using
the pure
