Summed partials count as one. SCALA doesn't adjust for <360deg, maybe it should as they are not independent. What would you call them?
I prefer "multiplicity" since Elspeth Garman commented "if they are redundant why bother measuring them" Phil Sent from my iPhone On 15 Jul 2011, at 18:24, James Holton <jmhol...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > At the risk of asking a question to which I should already know the answer: > > do partials "count" as "redundancy"? > > That is, in SCALA, is the number of "observations" the number of recorded > spots? Or is it the number of recorded spots after adding partials? If it > is the latter, what happens if you collect more than 360 degrees of data? > Does the second pass through a given unmerged hkl index count as "more > partials" or is it now somehow upgraded to an "independent" observation? > > Then again, in Eastern English the word "redundancy" has a negative > connotation, and the output of SCALA actually uses the word "multiplicity". > I wonder if that makes unmerged partials "redundant"? > > -James Holton > MAD Scientist > > On 7/15/2011 8:09 AM, Ed Pozharski wrote: >> On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 09:26 +0100, Phil Evans wrote: >>> Ed. You could count them from the unmerged output as you say, or I >>> could make you a special version of SCALA or Aimless maybe next week >>> >> Phil, >> >> that would be fantastic! Hope there is broader interest in such option >> (beyond Robbie and myself). I'll try unmerged output in the meantime. >> >> Ed. >> >
