RE: Rietveld

Hi, I am too young and out of the mainstream of powder diffraction to know all the stories about the born of the Rietveld Method. My question is: the article of Rietveld is published in 1969 and the article about the born of this method come out after that Hugo Rietveld pass away, why did

Re: Rietveld

Seems that Rietveld had not the same opinion and claimed for ideas too and possibly for mathematics as well. Best, Armel Armel, For the sake of the scientific exchange of ideas and facts, too bad that Dr. Rietveld is not alive. Regards, Miguel Delgado On 8/19/2018 6:21 PM, Le Bail

Re: Rietveld

  >"...the method did not suddenly appear in a flash of inspiration of a single >person, but was the result of the work of three individuals... Loopstra, van >Laar and Rietveld.".   And more precisely :   " HS wrote in Dutch: ‘Loopstra had the idea that it should be better to use the whole

Re: Rietveld

> Seriously, HS really think that Hugo Rietveld had absolutely no idea, and then worked out mathematically nothing ? Armel, the vL paper doesn't say that Rietveld had no idea and contributed nothing. Please read the first line of the paper

Re: Rietveld

Hi,   Reading again the Acta Cryst. (2018). A74, 88–92 paper :   "So, summarized here, HS wrote in Dutch: ‘Loopstra had the idea that it should be better to use the whole powder profile rather than estimated intensities to solve structures, van Laar worked it out mathematically and Rietveld